a controversial question,but a valid question:when should you shoot cop?
who do the police work for? well,historically the police were the arbitors of law.the men whose responsibility it was to execute the law.they were not judges,nor juries and in their performance of their duties they simply were agents to uphold laws.

but we have seen a disturbing change in how the law is executed,much of this is due to ever-increasing restrictive laws.the police have gone from upholding the law to agents whose sole purpose is to police the bottom 30%,and keep those poor,and unwashed masses from the supposed "better" people.

you know,those who own the "nice" property,in those "nice" gated communities?

while the american people fall further and further into poverty and irrelevance.those who own homes,and have assets are in greater need of the police to be the line drawn in the sand to protect them from those scary poor people,the homeless and the immigrants,.

so we have seen a police community that has gone from being helpful and performing a public service,to a a highly militarized,authoritarian force meant to keep the poor and disenfranchised down.

how ironic that the black community,which has known this truth for decades,is now seeing their white counterparts beginning to experience the same strong arm tactics that they have always experienced.

because what are the elites,and politically influential to do really?
pay more taxes?
well,that just goes against their own sense of free market and a free society.
and they can;t tax the homeowners any more,because they have squeezed them past the point of extortion.
so where is a government supposed to gain the funds needed to continue to provide those programs that the rich,and upper middle class so thoroughly enjoy?

i mean,even in a gated community they are fearful that some dirty white trash or negro is going to come for their stuff,and rape their women!

why they have the POLICE to become their revenue officers,and squeeze the very people who do not have any resources,or ability to fight back to help pay for the lifestyle they enjoy!

because they sure as fuck are not going to pay for it!
that is socialism! and they wont have any of that!

just look at ferguson MO.
which had revenue prior to 2007 from misdemeanor infractions that totaled 13%,but after the wall street banks wiped them out..they needed funding from somewhere.so that 13% rose to 66%.

so basically,the poor,working poor and lower middle class became the targets for the most inane,and creative misdemeanor infraction cycle in the country.

and what happens when a community begins to feel unfairly targeted?
they get pissed,and boy did ferguson get pissed...which is why the ferguson police department led the country for two years in citizen shootings.

because if those uppity citizens start to grumble,protest and actively oppose the local police revenue service.nothing says shut up like a bullet to the chest.
newtboysays...

When should you shoot a cop?
Answer: any time a cop threatens your life or that of your family.
You can always morally use actual self defense to excuse homicide. Take it to a jury trial, prove they threatened you or your family, and most likely you'll not be convicted. I sure wouldn't convict someone who shot an armed intruder in their own home, no matter what color the intruder's uniform was.
I would prefer life in prison to having my family murdered, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

bcglorfsays...

Made it 1:01:
In the real world however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed in the name of law enforcement than has been committed in spite of it.

When the guy leads with provably false statements I have to stop. Whether an opinion coming later may or may not be shared with my own doesn't matter to me, I've already decided the speaker isn't someone I want in my camp and is not someone I want to be listening to.

Paybacksays...

Haven't watched the video, but if he's talking about worldwide, he'd be accurate.

bcglorfsaid:

Made it 1:01:
In the real world however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed in the name of law enforcement than has been committed in spite of it.

When the guy leads with provably false statements I have to stop. Whether an opinion coming later may or may not be shared with my own doesn't matter to me, I've already decided the speaker isn't someone I want in my camp and is not someone I want to be listening to.

newtboysays...

If you count war, tyrants, genocides committed by governments/rulers, inappropriate criminal convictions/executions, draconian/harmful laws, illegal police actions, and political culling as law enforcement (and he does), he's almost certainly correct. Certainly there are exceptions in certain times and/or places, but as a whole I think he's not far off....at least counting since civilization/law enforcement started.
Think of Pol Pot....everything he did was in the name of law enforcement. He's not alone by a long shot.

bcglorfsaid:

Made it 1:01:
In the real world however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed in the name of law enforcement than has been committed in spite of it.

When the guy leads with provably false statements I have to stop. Whether an opinion coming later may or may not be shared with my own doesn't matter to me, I've already decided the speaker isn't someone I want in my camp and is not someone I want to be listening to.

enochsays...

@bcglorf
this video is from larken rose,a seriously devout libertarian.
he views statism as a form a religion,and that if a state is given too much power it will always lead to a form of tyranny.

i didn't post this as some kind of statement,or that the content reflects my own philosophy or ideals,but i try to understand all points of view to the best of my ability,even if i disagree.

so i am not making the case for when it is ok to shoot a cop,but i find larken's arguments compelling on a philosophical level.

because he does have a point in regards to america's hyper-militarized policing over the past decade.that is something that should concern us all.

anyways,for me it is just hearing a viewpoint from a different camp other than my own,and i thought his argument interesting.

drradonsays...

An interesting thesis but, like any philosophy taken to the extreme, ultimately fails to serve the public good. If we are all entirely free to decide what constitutes government "oppression" and when to resist it, the end state is anarchy. Although he vilifies politicians, they are elected as representatives of the people - if the people are unhappy with the actions of the politicians, they are free to, and it is incumbent on them to, participate in the electoral process to remove those politicians. If they choose not to do that, then they have no basis on which to complain.

bcglorfsays...

That is the part that I find worrisome though, is that his 'argument' is far from compelling. His very starting point is based on a completely false moral equivalency between the rule of Stalin, Mao and modern day America. As if dictatorships where the law enforcement would execute you for criticising the leader or being born to the wrong class or parents are no different or worse than America having 'sobriety checkpoints'. That's not compelling, it's idiocy.

Furthermore, as @drradon pointed out the alternative to a state is anarchy. Anarchy isn't a utopia even though the speaker almost seems to pretend that it is. The only 'justice' or 'law' in anarchy is might makes right, and throughout human history thugs, thieves and warlords dominate. A democratic state like America is vast improvement and beacon of light by comparison. Vehemently claiming otherwise is a blatant lie, not an 'alternative' view point. Unless we want to start accepting alternative facts...

enochsaid:

@bcglorf
i didn't post this as some kind of statement,or that the content reflects my own philosophy or ideals,but i try to understand all points of view to the best of my ability,even if i disagree....but i find larken's arguments compelling on a philosophical level.

bcglorfsays...

I pushed through to the 5 minute mark now to check for you. He doesn't stay on a global view for more than 60 seconds. In less than a minute he goes from making your valid point about global tyrants like Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin using 'law' enforcement, into declaring an equivalence to American law enforcement. He includes 'sobriety checkpoints' in his list of evil state intervention by American law enforcement that makes them 'no better'.

Observing that many law enforcement schemes, or even most law enforcement schemes globally and historically have been bad DOES NOT prove that ALL of them are. That's the very first day of any intro logic class and he blows that in the first 120 seconds.

newtboysaid:

If you count war, tyrants, genocides committed by governments/rulers, inappropriate criminal convictions/executions, draconian/harmful laws, illegal police actions, and political culling as law enforcement (and he does), he's almost certainly correct. Certainly there are exceptions in certain times and/or places, but as a whole I think he's not far off....at least counting since civilization/law enforcement started.
Think of Pol Pot....everything he did was in the name of law enforcement. He's not alone by a long shot.

enochsays...

@bcglorf

i don't think using @drradon 's example of anarchy a good use as a rebuttal.

now may be larken rose's vision is an extreme example,taken from the von mises institute,and where they dreamily offer a counter to police with a "non-aggression principle".while cute and adorable,humans tend to be far more vicious and violent in nature,especially when desperate.

but again,i think our respective approaches to authority will not find common ground here.

i do not seek a leader,but i am ok with a representative,though i do not seem to have any in my government at the moment.

i find it curious,amazing and not a little disturbing just how easily people will quietly,and tacitly accept a police that has become more and more draconian,violent and aggressive while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing the citizens rights to protect themselves,defend themselves and resist unlawful police practices.

because they simply change the law to make what WAS illegal...legal.with a stroke of a pen.

and i simply cannot respect when an american says,without any sense of justice or history,to just sit down,shut up and do what you are told.

while claiming they are a patriot,waving their american flag made in china.

the history of law enforcement in this country reveals that their main job,their main focus and duty is NOT to the poor,the dispossessed or the marginalized.

the police's job is to protect those who hold assets,who have money and wield political power.

and before you say anything,i am quite aware that there are some,and they are the majority,who do their job with honor and distinction.my argument is not about singular police officers but rather the systematic problems inherent in the system.

lets take my city for example.
i am blessed enough to live adjacent to a very wealthy and influential housing development.

average police response time?=7 minutes.

right down the street,not 10 miles down the road,is a depressed area of town.industry and manufacturing abandoned that area 20 years ago.it is stricken with prostitution,heroin addicts and abject poverty.

average police response time?=22 minutes

yet the main police station is in THAT area.

or should i bring up the history of american labor movement?
where the coal miners in west virginia decided to strike,and because the owners of the mines were politically connected.the governor sent in the state police to...and this should send chills down your spine...shoot any miners unwilling to go back to work.

and they did.
they murdered any coal miner still willing to stand up against the owners of the mine,and this included women and children.

now lets examine that for a minute.
workers for a coal mine decided to strike for better working conditions (which were horrible) and actually have a day off,besides sunday (because:god).

the owner of the mine,who was losing immense of amount of money due to zero production of coal,called the governor to have the state police,a civil institution,sent in to put those people down.to force them to either get back to work or face violence.

*now the owner brought in his own mercenary group to assist in the process of intimidation,strong arm tactics and violence.

i will add one more story that is personal,and comes from my own family,and may possibly explain my attitude towards police in general.

my father was born in 1930,in alton illinois.
now that small town had been hit particularly hard during the depression.my father spoke of not having indoor plumbing until he went into the navy,and how the floors in his childhood home were simple boards over dirt.

he grew up extremely poor,and my grandfather struggled to find steady work,and i gather from what my father told me.my grandpa made bootleg beer out of the bathtub.so he and his 6 brothers and 1 sister had to bathe in the mississippi river while grandpa tried to make money by selling illegal hooch.

my father also regaled me with stories of the chores he had as the youngest of 8 kids.it was his job every morning to head to the train tracks and pick the coal that dropped from the coal carts.(which he admitted to being lazy and stole directly from the very full coal cart itself while his brother kept an eye out for the station master).

my point is that my father grew up in desperate and poor times.

but one story always stood out,and i think it is because it has a wild west feel to it that always transfixed me,and i made him tell me the story over and over as a child.

when times are tough,people will do whatever they have to in order to survive,so my grandfather making illegal hooch was not the only illegalities being played out in that small town.neighbor upon neighbor did what they had to,and most were considered criminals in the eyes of the state.

so i guess one of my grandpa's friends was on the run from the law,and sought refuge at my grandpa's home.which he allowed,because neighbors take care of neighbors,at least they used to.

well,in a small town everybody knows everybody,and eventually three police officers showed up at my grandpa's house,and demanded that he turn over (i forgot the guys name).

and i remember the pride on my fathers face whenever he retold this story....

my grandfather stood tall on the top of his stairs facing his front door,holding his gun he was given during WW1 and told the police officers (which he knew.small town remember?),that if they took one step into his home..he would blow their heads off.

now this is a story retold from a childs perspective many years later.i am sure my fathers memory was a tad....biased..but i would bet the meaty parts were accurate.

now my question is this:
how would that exact same scenario play out in todays climate?

well,we would see on the 6 o'clock news how a family was tragically shot to death for harboring a criminal and that the police had done EVERYTHING in their power to avoid this kind of violence.

i know this is long,and i hope i didn't lose you along the way,but i think we should not dismiss the very real slow decent into a society that silently obeys,quietly accepts more and more authoritarian powers all in the name of "safety",and that any form of resistance is to be viewed as "criminal" and "troublesome".

so while i agree that "when should we shoot a cop" should be in the realm of:let us try to never do that.

i also cannot agree to placing cops on a hero platform as if their job is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach.they are human beings,of limited intellect,whose main job it is to protect those who own property,have wealth and wield political power.

and with the current disparity and blatant inequality their job has been more and more focused on keeping those 30% undesirables down.

the poor,the destitute,the marginalized,the addict and the junkie and the petty criminals.

those are a threat to the "better" citizens.they are a blight on a community that should be cleansed from the tender eyes of those who are deemed more "worthy".

rich folk may wring their hands,and lament the plight of the poor and wretched,but for GOD's sakes! they don't want to actually SEE them!

so a police officer can do all the mental gymnastics they want in order to justify their place in society,but at the end of the day,they serve the elites.

and they always have.

siftbotsays...

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More