A disturbing flyer is making its way around the Occupy Phoenix camp. And it’s targeting cops.
Yesterday, the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC — a division of the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety) released a bulletin announcing the chilling document that seems to endorse and justify the killing of law enforcement officers.
Copies of the “informational” letter were apparently left on a table with other documents to “educate” protesters at Occupy Phoenix. A bulletin from the ACTIC notifies officers of the document, but says that no credible threats against law enforcement official have been uncovered (yet its investigation continues).
“The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “’in the line of duty,’ take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the ‘law enforcer’ was the bad guy and the ‘cop killer’ was the good guy,” the document concludes. “As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.”
We are posting the entire text of this document, without edit or comment.
When Should You Shoot A Cop?
That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
What’s wrong with this document again? What if it’s a cop coming to take your guns ala’ Katrina? Or a group of SWAT “operators” breaking down your door at 3am during a no-knock raid and it’s the wrong address? Are we as citizens not allowed to defend ourselves against the police if they are in error? Or is it only they who get off scott free when they kill a citizen in error?
No, Corporal Green. You are not allowed, or should you be allowed, to shoot a cop when “they are in error.” That’s why you take them to court for what you believe may be a violation of your rights.
Your rights are not mitigated in the US by use of your personal firearm, legitimately possessed in accordance of the RKBA. They are adjudicated in courts, as our system intended.
Corporal Greene
you’re on a different pattern,
they put that paper on a crowd of lawless demonstrator representing all different non AMERICAN VALUES,
a bunch of them inciting the others, with the blessing of the DEMOCRATS in POWER,
some of them with a diminish brain could just make a go of it.
that is a dangerous crowd, not to be push too much before the dramatic event take place,
I know the law officers are in danger every time they want to get one or more of them arrested,
I admire their courage, and It’s obvious to see the WHITE HOUSE DON’T WANT THE POLICE
TO STOP THOSE RALLYS, THEY AGREED ON SINCE THEY ARE THE ONE TO START IT TO TAKE AWAY THE FOCUS OF THE PEOPLE DIRECTED AT THEIR OWN FAILURE.
ilovebeeswarzone:
I dont ever advocate the the shooting of police and cannot speak for the people of Phoenix but
“I know the law officers are in danger every time they want to get one or more of them arrested,
I admire their courage, and It’s obvious to see the WHITE HOUSE DON’T WANT THE POLICE
TO STOP THOSE RALLYS, THEY AGREED ON SINCE THEY ARE THE ONE TO START IT TO TAKE AWAY THE FOCUS OF THE PEOPLE DIRECTED AT THEIR OWN FAILURE. ”
You may want to talk to some of the gray haired ladies who were carried out buy the State police for pulling a cell phone out and taping the public proceedings. I am sure the 6 ft 250 pound State Troopers were just trembling when they approached the 105 lb 5 ft frame of this dangerous criminal.
The law enforcement officer duty is to maintain peace. This is why they are called peace officers. That is a tough job in good circumstances. But even more dificult when the people charged with keeping the peace when the leaders tell them to use heavy handed tactics.
Do you think we would be here today if those rebel leaders Like George Washington and Paul Revere just said oh wel they have the the law I guess they win. I have seen people arrested in Madison for having the constitution on their lap. That is abuse of power and that by all means needs to be resisted. To date the protesteers have so why the fear of cameras and the constitution?
Care to clarify, Wolfman? Is arresting a protestor with, as you put in, “having the constitution on their lap” good enough reason to shoot a law enforcement officer? For that is the subject here… not whether an arrest is valid or not.
If an arrest is invalid, citizens have the courts as a remedy.
I repeat, in the US, mitigating one’s rights – when you felt they were violated – is not done at a citizen’s gunpoint.
They are claiming it was infiltrators.
In all fairness, it was probably one of the neo-nazis that marched there in support of OWS (see first link). Not surprising as nazis are a type of socialist. Also as we are seing increasing levels of anti-semitism at the rallies, it’s no surprise fellow travelers would join in.
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=492665
Explanation of why neo-nazis would support OWS.
http://biggovernment.com/bbarrack/2011/10/24/timothy-mcveigh-smiling-up-at-occupywallst-protesters/
These useful idiots will eventually get someone killed. obama, Pelosi ET all will bare the full brunt of the coming disaster. You support anarchist you get anarchy.
Wolfman,
don’t go by weight, you have heard of the woman suicide bomber in AFGHANISTAN
KILLING 13 OF AMERICA’S MILITARYS IN A CONVOY, BY EXPLODING HERSELF,
WELL YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THE LAW OFFICERS HAVE HAD MANY OF THEM INJURED THAT MIGHT FOLLOW THEM ALL THEIR LIFE,
SO let them arrest all of them still shouting death to AMERICA, DEATH TO WHATEVER ARE NOT WITH THEM,
THIS IS A REBELLION, NO MORE NO LESS, THEY ARE AGAINST THE CITIZENS, OBSTRUCTING THE NORMAL LIFE SCARING THE CITIZENS, INJURING THE POLICE, INCITING OTHER LESS GIFTED,
THINKING IT’S A GOOD CAUSE, AND AND NAME SOME MORE.
@MataHarley: If you had read my post you would have seen that I said I don’t support shooting of police officers. What I said is that basically that while you are calling the OWS protesters thugs some of those charged with keeping the peace are thugs themselves. I work in corrections so I have seen both sides and seen the abuse on both sides.
I did read your comment, Wolfman.. and the below combination of sentences is what prompted me to ask for clarification.
These seem to be diametric opposites, Wolfman. You don’t support shooting police, but you advocate resist of arrest, which then puts the law enforcement into a more precarious position on how to handle the suspect.
So let’s go here… since you support resisting arrest, how do you expect police to handle that, depending upon what is done in the “resisting”… i.e. throwing objects and other assaults on police as has happened in NYC and their injured officers.
There are nonviolent methods of resistance. For the most part from what I have seen OWS have been nonviolent . Examples of noviolent resistance, Ghandi, King, Jesus (although he did overturn the tables at the temple). Forms of nonviolent restance would include locking arms, laying down, this is called passive resistance. Now a question for you why did the officer lob a teargas cannister at thet people trying to assist Scott Olsenwho were close enough to for him to see that they were trying assit an injured man? I doubt you can answer I know I don’t have an answer other than over reaction
Wolfman
I would have felt the same thing to see the crowd which would have grown bigger, coming in my back,
closing in on me, as close as he allowed them which he allowed too close,
he probably told them to stop at a certain minute, and no one want to be lynch by a mob,
he did what he had to do,
what is it,
do you think the police officers are undestructeble,?
many have allowed too much and where injured,
@ MataHarley, I’d still like to know what the legal recourse is for when a SWAT team shoots you in the middle of the night. How’s that former Marine that got shot 60-some odd times while he held a SAFED weapon in defense of his home doing? Oh wait,..no court cases coming from that one. Cops aren’t gods to be revered, they’re still people that need to be held accountable for their actions. That includes threatening people’s lives.
No, I don’t advocate shooting cops or ANYONE unless it’s in dire defense of life or property.
I’m sorry.. is that what has been done? And since you brought up Oakland, is that how it went down? A bunch of non violent types locking arms, laying down? I’m going to provide a link of a reporter who was there and this ought to answer your follow up question as well:
The link is to Mother Jones… the uber liberal, non profit “social justice” magazine. James West gives his account. Bottles lobbed at the police, some filled with vinegar, some with urine. The peaceful types were hijacked by the rogue who didn’t feel like lying down and locking arms.
More from Newsbusters.
This brings me back to my original question… what would you like the police to do? A crowd of 1000 vs 100 police. One on 10, by my count. How are they supposed to know who, or how many in the crowd, are going to be lobbing bottles or what is next?
Secondly, I don’t know why you think the police could see so all fired much about tending to the injured since, as James West/Mojo said “…the gas made the intersection impossible to rejoin for 10 minutes to confirm injuries.” They were at a distance… not monitoring at a live or recorded cell phone feed from the middle of the crowd. Perspective and proximity, if you please. Just a bit of logic. And then, within those that returned… about 800 by West’s estimates, the bottles starting lobbing again.
Again, what do you expect the police to do? Turn around and say, “oops… never mind. Have your way.”?
I didn’t say they are to be revered. They are humans and prone to errors as well. What I said is that you don’t resist arrest, and if it is unfounded, you take it up in our judicial system. We do not have justice against law enforcement here via your RKBA rights.
However you still appear to insist that if a cop is attempt to enter your house, it’s just hunky dory to stand there with a weapon… safety on, or not. Sorry… that’s plain stupid. Cops have no idea of your intent, and when you appear armed, they are within their full rights to shoot if they are threatened. I’d say holding a weapon is a threat…. You put the weapon down, go into custody and battle it out in court, if it’s an unwarranted arrest and false charges.
Resisting arrest, most certainly holding a weapon, is one good way to get yourself killed. You certainly give a law enforcement officer plenty of motive to do so because, apparently, a few of you think it’s okay to shoot one if they are breaking in to your house for legit reasons, or not.
@ MataHarley So, what are people to do? Just let ANYONE into their homes uninvited? What is the purpose of RKBA if not protection? Whether it’s a police officer or a gang member, someone breaking into your home and pointing guns at you is WRONG. What are we supposed to do? Lay down,..submit? Why not even just get rid of all those evil guns since having one in the freaking vicinity will cause a cop to yell “GUN” and shoot you. Won’t happen? Can’t happen? Yeah, Not here. 😉 One of my Ex’s is a cop and she admitted she’ll put her gun in a driver’s face if she see’s the ***WARNING! CITIZEN HAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE*** Is that right? When did an officer’s comfort trump a citizen’s right to safety? This is becoming a police state.
Oh yes.. you may want to wander over to this thread as well,and let everyone know what cops should do when “resistance” includes threats to the law enforcement officers.
Simple solution…. don’t threaten them, and live to battle it out in court. If the cop is in the wrong, you’ll be owning real estate.
sigh… go off the deep end much, Corporal? And please don’t leap to assumptions on my RKBA stance. I’m armed myself, enjoyed action pistol, and would fight to the death were anyone to attempt to strip the US citizens of the 2nd Amendment.
I wasn’t under the impression that if law enforcement had a warrant, an “invite” was necessary. While there may be instances of errors… as happens… it’s certainly not like officers just break down doors randomly to charge into homes “uninvited”.
But I guess I have my answer as to your thought on shooting law enforcement officers… I’ll just use your words.
Deep end? No, I’m just not into giving anyone a total free pass just because they choose a certain profession. However honorable the 95% of cops are, those “errors” as you call them do happen. There have been many instances of wrong address no-knocks where innocent citizens were killed or injured as a result of “errors”. THAT is what I’m saying. People have a right to defense.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-fort-smith/disarming-heroes-and-shooting-cops-self-defense
Can’t tell what you are talking about from your link, Corporal. There’s a vet with PTSD who’s fighting to keep his RKBA… with the aid of a state Congressman. And then there’s a guy who was defending himself against an off duty cop, run amok. The complaint states that the cop followed the wife home for reckless driving in his personal vehicle. Ya know, I know a lot of cops, but not one of them are trying to enforce traffic infractions off duty. If they saw something amiss, they’d call it in.
Also, only the cop says he showed them a badge. When you read the dispatcher’s testimony and others, it sounds like the guy never did. They had no idea he was an officer…. and he was certainly a loon.
Since he was a volunteer fireman, his truck was equipped with emergency lights. He never used them. He had called the dispatcher to get her to run the plates, but never told the dispatcher he was going to pull the vehicle over.
Additionally, witnesses contradict the off duty cop’s testimony.
What should really make them angry is that they aren’t going to be pressing charges against the officer. Don’t know that doesn’t mean he won’t get penalized by the police hierarchy, since he followed none of the procedures an officer would do.. most especially if you’re off duty and do have the capability of having emergency lights on your personal vehicle.
Considering that there are plenty of scams these days of people impersonating an officer, flashing a badge.. which according to Chambliss’ account, didn’t happen since the guy hit him with his personal truck… I’d shoot as well, and the result would be the same. No charges. The officer was not legally acting under color of law.
All that aside, this isn’t the same discussion as shooting officers while in the line of duty, equating this with taking aim at officers or SWAT for entering the home with warrants. This guy wasn’t acting as a cop.
So what’s the State v Plummer bit? I see no information on that link.
A provocative flyer. Context has much to do with how we judge it. If said pretty much the same thing, but was in German and had been printed and distributed in Berlin during the last years of the Third Reich, what would we think about it about it?
That was there and then, while this is here and now. It might serve as a good subject for thoughtful analysis and discussion, but it’s definitely out of place in the context of any current protest or political demonstration.
Consider the source of the text reportedly on the supposed flyer: The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. “Uncontroversial” certainly isn’t the first word that comes to mind.
I would like to see an image of the actual flyer that was recovered, rather than just being given the text and an assertion concerning where it came from.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
This is Plummer Vs. State “bit”. Constitutional case law. Citizens DO have a right of defense.
Corporal Green
you know, there is one thing that I feel uneasy about,
that is what I heard that there was some MUSLIMS in the police force, it was said by a group of MUSLIMS
IN A VIDEO, bragging that their own had jobs in intel organisation, and in police force adding that by 2016, their law would be install,i just miss the word of that law,now although I know it,
all this to say that with their religion they live by, and mentality, different from AMERICANS,
it would be difficult to have them in position of power like it because they are not assimilated and the possibility is not farfetch that they could use their job to harrass citizen, like veterans who came back from war against whom they call brother, there was recently another comment citing a great abuse by a police officer in charge in a very small community which are much afraid of him, and are being arrested on a road alone by this police officer without having not done any thing wrong,
that caught my attention and I notice the first name of the officer as being ISMAEL,
and remembered the group of MUSLIMS BRAGGING,, and I made the connection ,mentionning it to the poster,
just think what you want of it.
bye
I think that this flyer is about the manipulation of useful idiots. Remember that Donny Deutsch stated that what the OWS movement needs is a Kent State moment and this flyer might be intended to create the situation to make such a moment possible.
We have some protestors throwing rocks, paint, urine, glass and all sorts of things at officers. Then you have this flyer pop up that could (1) suggest to your useful idiot protestors that violence, even shooting officers, is acceptable. (2) Law enforcement officers discover such flyers and are put on alert that there very well may be violent and deadly force used against them, which may put some officers on edge expecting that there may be armed gunmen in the crowd. Both together, could create a self fulfilling prophesy for scum like Donny Deutsch.
@MataHarley:
You’ve noticed, I am sure, that Corporal Green doesn’t cite Plummer directly but rather through the filter of another party….
Wonder why that is…
Could it be that the case doesn’t say what he claims it does?
Edited to add that Plummer is a case from 1893. Think that ruling, if it was what Green claims, is still valid? Very doubtful.
@ Aye
I’m not sure about that Aye. While I have great respect for the po-po, when my house alarm goes off while I’m sleeping, I usually have my hand on my Ruger .45 ACP pretty quick. If it happened to be the police, I would certainly surrender and work things out instead of firing blindly and becoming swiss cheese by the rest of the team.
I did find some links from the Plummer v State to SCOTUS for John Bad Elk v US in 1900. I don’t know how it would hold up today, but I would have to think it would still stick. The ruling basically boils down to this statement:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html
@Greg:
Greg, you are most certainly a propagandist for the left. You have no problem lying for them and it shows. It’s the YouTube vid issue with you all over again. Even when presented with irrefutable proof you make something up to argue against it.
How about addressing my post #6 before trying to spin things?
Little FYI, they had one of the Phoenix OWS people on the news here and he was saying it was put there by “infiltrators”. He wasn’t claiming it was fake.
Aqua, I believe that you have a right to doubt if it would work today, when you see what is going on now,
the police are unionyse, the WHITE HOUSE protect them, and DEFACE LAWS TO ACCOMODATE THEMSELVES, THEIR LAWYERS will take their interest, over a civilien, at theses troubles time.
we are living in.
@Hard Right, #26:
Do you think a simple image of the flyer that the Maricopa County police state they found is too much to ask for?
The willingness of people to unquestioningly accept any allegation that supports their preexisting view of reality tends to greatly diminish their own credibility. Surely anyone who demanded the release of Obama’s original birth certificate understands the importance of visual evidence.
@Greg:
Here ya go:
http://www.twincitiesnewstalk.com/pages/davisandemmer.html?article=9319205
@ Ms Bees
There are plenty of good solid citizens that are union members, including police officers. I have had very few encounters with law enforcement, and hope to keep it that way. The encounters I have had have all been good. I have never had an officer disrespect me.
I continue to be surprised that we have men and women that will put up with the crap law enforcement has to deal with. I haven’t seen it mentioned on FA yet, but a Border Patrol Agent was just sentenced to 2 years in prison for “improperly lifting the arms of a 15 year old drug smuggler.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/25/border-agent-jaile-arrest-teen-drug-smuggler/?page=all
@Aye, #29:
Thanks, but I believe that’s the alleged transcript again–the same thing that was linked in the original article to these words: “We are posting the entire text of this document, without edit or comment.” (The italics have been added.)
I haven’t been able to turn up an image of the flyer itself anywhere.
Okay… let’s straighten out some confusion here, Corporal. When you search for any opinion text for this “Plummer v State 136 ind. 306”, all roads lead back to this same single page. ’tis almost an urban legend on it’s own and, in fact, has an entire thread stumped on it’s existence. However, one quick witted reader referenced a 2006 case, Shane Allen Wilson v State, where there is a side reference to a Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308 in the appellate’s defense.
Constitution.org has cited a nonexistent case, it seems. The Indiana Supreme Court case of Plummer v State was from back in 1893. Needless to say, that opinion is so old, it’s text doesn’t appear in the court’s archives.
You can read the case I linked above first and you’ll find that Shane (who apparently sounds young) had a warrant out for his arrest. They saw him tooling around in his truck, and pulled him over. He started crying… didn’t want to go to jail, and took off. The marshal and officer both shot at the tires to stop the car. He was later caught in a barn, sentenced and imprisoned for three years. This was his appeal. The officers were also charged with criminal recklessness, but hadn’t been tried at the time of this decision.
At issue in Wilson v State was whether the lower trial court had failed to properly instruct a jury of a defendant’s rights… and Wilson was trying to say that since the officers attempt to arrest was excessive, he should be let off the hook.
So before I get you to the really bad news… which is Richard Barnes v State in the IN Supreme Court, May 2011… you can learn of the 19th century story of Plummer, PO’ed because the town’s board told him to trim his shade trees, as told by reading the Wilson opinion. You will also learn of the subsequent opinions since that time.
It boils down to this, as upheld thru time… officers are not allowed to use excessive force when attempting a legal arrest. If one is not effecting a legal arrest, and does use excessive force (using the example of the bozo off duty cop above), a citizen may use resistance, but not such that is disproportionate to the excess. In Plummer, the marshal who ended up dying from Plummer’s shot did much the same as the off duty cop we discussed above… didn’t indicate he was under arrest, behavior before he shot at Plummer (who shot back), etc.
Another thing that Constitution.org did not note, when referencing Elk v US. It simply repeats what is above, as Elk’s opinion says:
I take this to mean you have no justification to shoot a cop because he’s entering your home. That is most definitely disproportionate.
Now, on to the bad and extremely current news….
Barnes v State is an Indiana case that was heard in Indiana’s Supreme Court this past May, and ruled exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say.
The Barnes opinion is here, and to summarize, Barnes attempted the same route as Wilson did in 2006… saying the court didn’t instruct the jury as to his rights to resist arrest. His was a case of a domestic battle as he was moving out of the apartment. Ultimately, he followed his wife (who had called 911 for his agitated behavior) back into the apartment. The officers followed and Barnes blocked the door. The wife said “let them him”, he refused, things escalated and he was tasered. Ended up in the hospital with an adverse reaction.
Then his lawsuit against the state. The lower courts found him guilty of battery on the officers. The Appellate court ordered a new trial for insufficient evidence of disorderly conduct, and questionable trial court instructions and the IN Supremes granted transfer.
Again, you’ll learn of sundry court cases that state that any resistance to an illegal and unconstitutional arrest may be no more than to resist the assault. Thus if an officer is shooting at you illegally, as above, the courts find in your favor. But if they are breaking down your down with a warrant in hand, and you’re waiting for them with a semi-automatic, the courts perspective focuses on what may be unreasonable resistance by the suspect instead.
The Barne’s opinion ultimately falls squarely in the camp that resisting arrest in modern times escalates the violence, and that there are more avenues for redress of grievance. Back when the original Plummer and common law resistance was around, jail was disease infested, infinite detention and physical abuse was common… so it was understandable that resistance was more commonplace.
The pertinent areas of interest start at the bottom of pg 4 and all of 5 INRE the legality of resistance. Read it all, but some of the final summary in general about the precedents they cited:
Of course there are dissenting opinions, but Barnes v State final opinion did not uphold the view that you suggest. Nor could they have come to that if precedents had strictly forbidden such. If there is an appeal, it won’t get to the SCOTUS until next year at the earliest… then hearings before an opinion.
I have not read there is any appeal in the works, and apparently Constitution.org needs to update their blurb with the May 2011 IN Supreme’s decision against the plaintiff, Richard Barnes.
@Greg:
The Blaze posted the transcript of the text.
The link I provided gives you a scan of the actual document.
@MataHarley:
Here is some additional info on Plummer from a summary published in 1893. (Beginning on page 968.)
From the summary:
“We are constrained to hold that Dorn, [the Marshal] abused that authority by striking Plummer over the head with his club. Had he informed Plummer that he intended to arrest him, and requested him to submit to such arrest and then Plummer had refused to submit and resisted, or threatened to resist arrest, with any demonstration of force, a very different question would have been presented. In such a case, the officer, as we have seen, having authority to arrest, would have been justified in using force sufficient and necessary to overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person he was attempting to arrest.”
Not at all what Corporal Green was trying to sell us. In fact, pretty much the exact opposite.
Boy, super-sleuth Aye… took some patience for you to go thru all that Nor’easter. LOL Thanks for the page number. Helps to have the right court case number, eh?
The more in depth synopsis of Plummer’s day in court comes from the Wilson opinion I linked, which I’ve excerpted below:
This was 1893. I have to wonder if the same situation,duplicated in 2011, would be the same outcome. I doubt today’s courts would take kindly to an irate guy, walking around with a loaded revolver, threatening to shoot city council members for a tree trimming decision. That said, police have certain procedures to follow. When they don’t, the courts weigh in favor of the plaintiff. But the one constant remains thru the decades… the resistance of arrest used cannot be disproportionate.
And it looks like May 2011 decision in Barnes may have just taken a turn in that aspect as well…
@Greg:
See Aye’s #33.
How about you prove the MCSO was lying about what was reported to be on the flyer? YOU were the one questioning their honesty.
BTW, I never questioned obama’s citizenship.
Like I said, you are a propagandist.
Aqua, you know I have not meant to discredit the police in any way,
because I’m on their side, nor the members of the UNIONS,
Which follow orders, only the union bosses trying to govern with OBAMA,
I was discrediting the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM in power,
where laws of the lands are made a mockery,along with UNIONS
participating in the owe rally, encouraging it,as a legitimate exercise of DEMOCRACY,
SERVING EXEMPLE TO THE YOUNG AMERICANS, that those promoting violence for the sake of change, are not well educated on the means to become a good citizen, in this great NATION. and there it is, the border patrol arrested for doing the right thing,
that’s what I meant,
BYE
MATA, I don’t blame the defendant, being told they where going to cut out his trees, of cours he was angry and challenge the city to blow steam,
I don’t think a public employee should have use that threat on a citizen own self property,
and the MARSHAL COULD HAVE USE HIS BRAIN TO TALK IT OVER TO COOL THE ANGER,
BEFORE CLUBBING HIM, AND SHOOTING ALSO WHICH GAVE THE RESPONSE,
that killed him, because having been shot, it was clear he was defending his life,
bye
The origin of the “When Should You Shoot a Cop” text. It was a featured guest post by one Larken Rose, originally posted to an internet site called Cop Block on June 28, 2011.
Oh my, Greg… do your liberal, OWS friends know that you are actively working to thwart their efforts to claim the gun lovin’ Tea Partiers actually put those flyers there??
LOL Demerits for you, my friend. You’ve blown their talking points out of the water with Cop Block, founded by a two time convicted drug dealer… er “victim of the war on drugs”… and surrounded by other similar braintrusts/ minds like “George Sand” (not of literary fame), and Edmon Dante (not of Count of Monte Cristo fame).
Their mission is stated, according to their “strategist”, Pete Erye (probably not related to Jane Eyre either…).
So I’d say this does a couple of things…
1: As I said, your OWS types, attempting to put this on the Tea Party, have just had their talking points ripped out of their hot little hands, and
2: It was put out by a leftist, cop hating group, bent on taking down what they believe are legal entitlements they have that others don’t.
I wonder when the law enforcement officials will ever have people on their side. After all, their job entails being the moving target of asshats every day, and trying to find some way to protect and serve the rest of the public who are inconvenienced by inconsiderate, law breaking mobs – like the OWS – without offending people like Greg…. all the while taking injuries, insults and taunts by those bent on a “Kent State” moment.
I say start charging the OWS for the costs of police security for their illegal camping… but for heavens sake, let them continue to stay and prove to the rest of the world exactly who they are, and the anarchy they seek. Couldn’t get better free press for conservative and Constitutional causes.
Oh… how derelict of me not to give you a bit of info on Larken Rose, one of Quatloser’s Hall of Shame for his tax scam website. He’s another that fits in well with the Cop Block crowd since he was convicted for tax evasion by the DOJ and sentenced to 15 months.
Probably doesn’t help his principles – or his business – much when he paid a large down, filed his delinquent tax returns and is making payments, eh? He’s a self-admitted anarchist, and also fits in well with the OWS.
And BTW, if you don’t think that anarchists are hanging high profile with the OWS, you need only check out admitted Cleveland Marxist, Jay in Cleveland, and his Marxist Update blog. Then, of course, the most famous OWS anarchist, David Graeber. But then, most uninformed liberals think of anarchists as all far right wing…. hazards of being misinformed.
Keep ’em coming, Greg. With friends like you, the OWS doesn’t need enemies! LOL
Undoubtedly some right wing operative ran off copies of the Larken Rose guest post and distributed it at the OWS location for the police to find.
(That was intended as snark, but now that I think about it, I suppose there’s a reasonable possibility that that’s what actually happened.)
Why on earth would anyone assume criminal types to be mostly liberal? Do you imagine these people want gun control? Do you think they’re fond of law enforcement? Or that they give a rat’s ass about social responsibility? Do their white-collar-criminal types want closer government regulation of anything? They probably want marijuana decriminalized about as badly as Al Capone wanted an end to prohibition.
LOL… well, Greg… you’re too late to learn your talking points. It was you, after all, who outed the source of the pamphlets at the OWS.
You ask why would anyone assume criminal types to be mostly liberal, and pro gun control? And why would you think they are fiscal conservatives, I’d say in return.
And of course they (OWS and Cop Block) aren’t fond of law enforcement… they are anarchists.
Your problem is you think anarchy and anarchists are right wing conservative extremes. The very definition of anarchy from Anarchism Today is an anti-capitalist message.
Anti-capitalist… Now does that resemble the Tea Party in any way, Greg? And does it not fit the OWS like a silk glove?
That’s why the anarchists… like Cop Block… tend to lean in that direction. Self descriptions from just a couple of their contributors..
Do not confuse “limited government” and “fiscal responsibility” with such phrases as “government is never necessary” and anarchism. These people describe issues they would find in common with the OWS, but never the Tea Party.
But, as Aye likes to say… “Thanks for playing!”
@MataHarley:
I’d argue that some anarchists do “consider themselves” Libertarians (Bill Maher for example) and some Libertarians are anarchists. On the other hand, some Libertarians are isolationists, some constitutionalists, and some Libertarians are free-trade anarchistic-capitalists (who think government should never put any restrictions or regulations on business).
Other anarchists may be of the selfish, predatory, sometimes criminally minded ilk who care nothing for liberty or freedom beyond the freedom for them to prey on, control and manipulate their victims. Then there are the public teat moochers who are not quite true anarchists, but who simply want a free ride from society without any responsibility or restrictions for themselves. Many of the OWS crowd fit within these two groupings.
There are the recreational anarchists, (such as the Society for Creative Anachronism) who usually are “weekend” living history fellowships. Finally there is a form of Anarchy that rejects governments or “normal” society in order to enjoy their own form of society (usually within a specific racial or religious association). Most of these are somewhat closed societies such as the Amish, Mennonites and tribal groups. These of course are also not truly anarchists, as they follow the rules and leadership within their particular group fellowship.
@Ditto, actually I wouldn’t argue much at all with your astute overview of anarchists and their wide varieties of flavors. They are, indeed, comprised of fringe left and right. But you know how it is.. you travel far enough east and you end up in the west. It all depends upon perspective.
In reality, fringe left and right have a hairline of difference between the two since they end up as the same result… power concentrated in a few elected (or self appointed) despots, and the only ones that can enter that privileged circle do so only by invitation. A perfect example are those that think that Stalin or Lenin are so different than Hitler. They like to classify Hitler as “right”, the Stalin and Lenin as “left”. Interesting since the largest US neo Nazi group calls themselves the “National Socialist Party” (after Hitler’s party, of course)… and frankly, their ultimate aims of control over the masses do not differ so much from the US Communist Party, or even the Working Party.
In the specific case of the self admitted anarchists at Cop Block, they are particularly well suited for OWS alliance. Since the founder is a “victim of the war on drugs, twice”, he’s hardly aligned with conservative beliefs, and is likely to be more “liberal” with drug laws… as evidenced by where medical marijuana is alive and well in liberal dominated states. The fact that at least one admits to being an anarchist, after beginning as a Republican, doesn’t make much difference. As I said, you travel far enough east, you end up in the west. Where is that dividing line, when anarchy… or power controlled by an elite few… lie?
On the flip side, if they thought that the TeePee’rs (as in Tea Party) were amiable to anti-cop sentiments, they’d be aligned with those rallies too, to advance their causes. But they know better. The simple reality is this…
Respect for law enforcement:
Tea Party: check (unfriendly to Cop Block ends)
OWS: ??? doesn’t appear to be so
Respect for right to assemble and redress grievance laws (i.e. permits, curfews, etc)
Tea Party: check
OWS: ??? doesn’t appear to be so
Defined message of grievances:
Tea Party: check – fiscal responsibility and limited (not “no”) central government
OWS: ??? doesn’t appear to be so – no fiscal brights, and increased central government
Needless to say, the Tea Party is not going to be welcoming Cop Block at their rallies, or in their circles.
Finally, one of the flaws shared between both left and right anarchists is that few actually know the theory, philosophy, definition, and results of anarchy. But that you can chalk up to piss poor education, right?
@MataHarley:
Agreed Mata. I just thought I’d point out that anarchy comes in many flavors including Libertarian.
Ah, but such leadership is not anarchistic at all. Those are in every case wolfish oligarchies hiding under the sheep’s clothing of democracy/socialism. As you know, true anarchy is a leaderless society, bereft of law, government or stability. The microcosm societies of the Mad Max and Escape from New York films are the closest to what life would be like under true anarchy.
For the most part, with quite a bit of student laziness tossed in. I am extremely down on the political left over education, which they claim to throw all their support behind, yet the quality of our children’s education has been on a downhill trend ever since it has been handed over to Democrats. The cost of education increases while the results decline. At the same time a college education is being made unaffordable due to out of control tuition and class cost inflation, and no one can dispute that the vast majority of higher education is controlled by pro-Democrat administrative hierarchies.
Is Obama’s solution to place educational reforms and increased regulation on educators? No, he simply supports the continued failing systems and offers to help the students rewrite their loans. The administration of these educational systems need to be thrown out of office and replaced with people who will control and lower costs and insure that educational quality increases.