Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 24, 2014 23:00:13 GMT -6
from Karl Denninger's Market-Ticker.org
market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229683
Halfway There Is No Answer At All
by Karl Denninger
From the Wall Street Journal:
"In the opinion of Howard Safir, who was New York City’s police commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani , the trail of blame reaches even higher: “The [anti-police] rhetoric this time is not from the usual suspects, but from the Mayor of New York City, the Attorney General of the United States, and even the president,” he wrote online for Time magazine. “It emboldens criminals and sends a message that every encounter a black person has with a police officer is one to be feared.”"
"Ah, but see, here's the problem: If just one time, ever, a person is unjustly accused or evidence manufactured -- that is, one single time you arrest or detain someone without cause you have sent the proper message that any such future encounter is to be feared.
Here's why: Every arrest and detainment, from the routine speeding stop up, is made with the implied if not explicit threat of death.
Doubt me? How come all of those stops are made with a gun strapped to the hip -- or out and in-hand?
Remember that detainment is not the same thing as walking down the street. The person detained is by definition not free to go; he or she is being accosted, and the threat of force is being explicitly used in an attempt to compel compliance.
This is not to say that you don't need to arrest and detain people. That's a necessary part of being a peace officer.
But -- and this is what nobody is focusing on:
There must be zero tolerance for any unfounded detainment or arrest, and every single one must be treated and prosecuted as assault (or worse, if it escalates.)
The two officers executed in NYC were shot by a man who had no business being on the street. But law enforcement as a body is not blameless; they hold responsibility for at least one documented instance in which the shooter was unjustifiably harassed and threatened with arrest on a pretext generated unlawfully by a cop with his dog.
That's documented in video that the shooter took -- a recording that was unlawfully terminated by the officer involved as well. (It is established by the Supreme Court that you have a right to video and/or audio record any encounter with a law enforcement agency that takes place in public or upon your property.)
Beyond the violation of rights and instilling of justified fear of police (instead of cooperation with them) that this sort of assault generates there is a further and far-more-serious problem that such actions generate: Agencies risk creating a bunch of Han Solos who choose to shoot first.
Consider this: Due to the fact the cops are almost-never indicted for killing people when such is unnecessary and unjustified and every encounter includes the implied or explicit threat of deadly force every unjustified detainment or arrest risks generating someone who chooses to shoot first, judging that the next time the cop will shoot, justified or not.
There is no way to know how much of the shooter's motivation came from that unlawful detainment but it's entirely reasonable to deduce that it wasn't zero. The cop who performed that act of harassment has blood on his hands and the entire department he works for, along with the DA in that jurisdiction, does as well for not bringing assault charges against that officer and dismissing him from the force.
It's obvious that peace officers must in fact arrest people from time to time. It's also obvious that every detainment or arrest comes with the implied or explicit threat of deadly force. That's the price of having peace officers -- it comes with that role in society.
But there is zero justification for any abuse of those powers. Ever. Not only does every such abuse violate someone's rights it creates a reason in that person and everyone who learns of the event for them to not only refuse cooperation and shun any communication with said peace officers in the future it also creates a pretext for that individual and others to either shoot first or, far worse, shoot preemptively.
Irrespective of how you feel about cops and the law generally simply as a matter of arithmetic this is a battle that must never be fought because it is one that the police cannot win. To entertain or tolerate any of this crap is to advocate for the destruction of civil society.
For this reason we must have reform and all peaceful citizens must insist that it happen now.
We must insist that we have peace officers rather than law enforcement officers. A Peace Officer by definition is there to enforce that which is necessary to deter breaches of the peace -- nothing more. A man selling something he lawfully purchased and owned to another person who can lawfully own and consume same is not breaching the peace. A man pointing a gun at someone, on the other hand, is and such an act is perfectly legitimate to meet with deadly force.
If we are interested in stopping the rapidly-deteriorating cycle of violence we must be honest about what has prompted the destruction of trust between peace officers and the public, starting with the redefinition of peace officers into law enforcement officers. We then continued by militarizing those forces and intentionally creating an air of intimidation they project onto the public, from their big honking SUVs (what do you need one of those for, complete with it's sub-15mpg fuel piggishness and outrageous cost to the taxpayer, when a Prius will do just as well as a routine beat cop?) to commando-style outfitting and equipment.
We must reverse those changes, we must stop trying to claim that lawful acts such as being in your lawfully-parked vehicle while intoxicated constitute crimes such as "DUI", we must prosecute each and every trumped up stop, detainment or false arrest, we must file obstruction of justice charges against every cop, DA and other person who tampers with or slants investigations, destroys or obscures evidence and we must apply the exact same standard for use of force to peace officers that we apply to civilians.
Further, these peace officers along with our Mayors, Governors and others must stop claiming some sort of "valor" or "distinction" simply based on their job; they are not first responders, you as citizens are. It is settled law that they have no responsibility whatsoever if they fail to protect you in any particular instance -- even if said failure is due to their voluntary decision or intentional delay in response.
When -- and only when -- all of that happens [the changes] then peace officers can expect the cooperation and trust of the public.
Until then they have no right to expect any such thing irrespective of how often they bray to the contrary."
market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229683
Halfway There Is No Answer At All
by Karl Denninger
From the Wall Street Journal:
"In the opinion of Howard Safir, who was New York City’s police commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani , the trail of blame reaches even higher: “The [anti-police] rhetoric this time is not from the usual suspects, but from the Mayor of New York City, the Attorney General of the United States, and even the president,” he wrote online for Time magazine. “It emboldens criminals and sends a message that every encounter a black person has with a police officer is one to be feared.”"
"Ah, but see, here's the problem: If just one time, ever, a person is unjustly accused or evidence manufactured -- that is, one single time you arrest or detain someone without cause you have sent the proper message that any such future encounter is to be feared.
Here's why: Every arrest and detainment, from the routine speeding stop up, is made with the implied if not explicit threat of death.
Doubt me? How come all of those stops are made with a gun strapped to the hip -- or out and in-hand?
Remember that detainment is not the same thing as walking down the street. The person detained is by definition not free to go; he or she is being accosted, and the threat of force is being explicitly used in an attempt to compel compliance.
This is not to say that you don't need to arrest and detain people. That's a necessary part of being a peace officer.
But -- and this is what nobody is focusing on:
There must be zero tolerance for any unfounded detainment or arrest, and every single one must be treated and prosecuted as assault (or worse, if it escalates.)
The two officers executed in NYC were shot by a man who had no business being on the street. But law enforcement as a body is not blameless; they hold responsibility for at least one documented instance in which the shooter was unjustifiably harassed and threatened with arrest on a pretext generated unlawfully by a cop with his dog.
That's documented in video that the shooter took -- a recording that was unlawfully terminated by the officer involved as well. (It is established by the Supreme Court that you have a right to video and/or audio record any encounter with a law enforcement agency that takes place in public or upon your property.)
Beyond the violation of rights and instilling of justified fear of police (instead of cooperation with them) that this sort of assault generates there is a further and far-more-serious problem that such actions generate: Agencies risk creating a bunch of Han Solos who choose to shoot first.
Consider this: Due to the fact the cops are almost-never indicted for killing people when such is unnecessary and unjustified and every encounter includes the implied or explicit threat of deadly force every unjustified detainment or arrest risks generating someone who chooses to shoot first, judging that the next time the cop will shoot, justified or not.
There is no way to know how much of the shooter's motivation came from that unlawful detainment but it's entirely reasonable to deduce that it wasn't zero. The cop who performed that act of harassment has blood on his hands and the entire department he works for, along with the DA in that jurisdiction, does as well for not bringing assault charges against that officer and dismissing him from the force.
It's obvious that peace officers must in fact arrest people from time to time. It's also obvious that every detainment or arrest comes with the implied or explicit threat of deadly force. That's the price of having peace officers -- it comes with that role in society.
But there is zero justification for any abuse of those powers. Ever. Not only does every such abuse violate someone's rights it creates a reason in that person and everyone who learns of the event for them to not only refuse cooperation and shun any communication with said peace officers in the future it also creates a pretext for that individual and others to either shoot first or, far worse, shoot preemptively.
Irrespective of how you feel about cops and the law generally simply as a matter of arithmetic this is a battle that must never be fought because it is one that the police cannot win. To entertain or tolerate any of this crap is to advocate for the destruction of civil society.
For this reason we must have reform and all peaceful citizens must insist that it happen now.
We must insist that we have peace officers rather than law enforcement officers. A Peace Officer by definition is there to enforce that which is necessary to deter breaches of the peace -- nothing more. A man selling something he lawfully purchased and owned to another person who can lawfully own and consume same is not breaching the peace. A man pointing a gun at someone, on the other hand, is and such an act is perfectly legitimate to meet with deadly force.
If we are interested in stopping the rapidly-deteriorating cycle of violence we must be honest about what has prompted the destruction of trust between peace officers and the public, starting with the redefinition of peace officers into law enforcement officers. We then continued by militarizing those forces and intentionally creating an air of intimidation they project onto the public, from their big honking SUVs (what do you need one of those for, complete with it's sub-15mpg fuel piggishness and outrageous cost to the taxpayer, when a Prius will do just as well as a routine beat cop?) to commando-style outfitting and equipment.
We must reverse those changes, we must stop trying to claim that lawful acts such as being in your lawfully-parked vehicle while intoxicated constitute crimes such as "DUI", we must prosecute each and every trumped up stop, detainment or false arrest, we must file obstruction of justice charges against every cop, DA and other person who tampers with or slants investigations, destroys or obscures evidence and we must apply the exact same standard for use of force to peace officers that we apply to civilians.
Further, these peace officers along with our Mayors, Governors and others must stop claiming some sort of "valor" or "distinction" simply based on their job; they are not first responders, you as citizens are. It is settled law that they have no responsibility whatsoever if they fail to protect you in any particular instance -- even if said failure is due to their voluntary decision or intentional delay in response.
When -- and only when -- all of that happens [the changes] then peace officers can expect the cooperation and trust of the public.
Until then they have no right to expect any such thing irrespective of how often they bray to the contrary."