If you support government police, you support institutionalized rape, murder, and plunder

Part 2 of a series on how Florida’s most despicable police officers continue to remain on the job is both enlightening and frightening. A Herald-Tribune investigation found that thousands of Florida officers remain on the job despite arrests or evidence of crimes that would result in incarceration for any ordinary person.

Reprehensible behaviors by these “rogue” officers (thousands of them, actually) include sex with prisoners, rape of teenage girls, and domestic violence. In each of these cases, state law enforcement officials allowed the officers involved to retain their badges. Other activities these heroes in blue have engaged in include less concerning crimes of extortion, drug trafficking, and attempted murder (read more here).

The Herald-Tribune investigation further found such behavior was not isolated. One in 20 active law enforcement officers in Florida had committed moral character violations (drugs, violence or other crimes) “serious enough to jeopardize their career.” It is interesting the Herald-Tribune phrases this fact in this manner. It should be revolting enough that police are engaged in such activities at all, but the focus of the issue seems to be on the fact the behavior is so bad that they could actually lose their jobs (which quite frankly, doesn’t happen very often – read more here).

The Herald-Tribune article, reflecting the attitudes of most people, fails to acknowledge police are always breaking the law. They break the very law they swear to uphold on a daily basis – jaywalking, speeding, parking in red and handicapped zones, talking on cell phones while driving, running stop signs, etc. People see police doing these things everyday, but are not concerned because police are allegedly “doing their jobs” and “serving people.”

Somehow, people believe that even though speeding, talking on cell phones while driving, and parking in fire lanes are all illegal for the protection and good of the people, it is ok when police are break laws because 1. they deserve some leniency for the good work they do and 2. they need some leniency in order to properly do their job – i.e. police need to break the law in order to enforce it sometimes, and need to behave dangerously in order to prevent danger.

So why should we care if police are raping, trafficking drugs, or committing extortion? If the logic was correct to begin with, there’s no rational reason to draw the line arbitrarily at parking and driving violations. If  “protecting people” is furthered by breaking the law once in a while, and “doing your job” is an excuse for breaking laws, then surely the same applies to rape, drug crimes, and extortion.

If one’s knee-jerk reaction to people (such as us here at Copblock) bitching about cops breaking parking and driving laws is, “shut up and get a life hippie! He’s just doing his job! He’s out there risking his life to protect you” – that very same response should apply when people like us bitch about cops raping teenagers, beating their wives, and abusing their kids.

In other words, many of you people out there who claim to be shocked and horrified when police are out raping people and beating kids are pretentious assholes. You actually think it’s ok. I know this because you are the type who vomits up the same platitudes over and over again about how police need some leniency because their jobs are difficult. You are same people who go, “hmm, that makes sense” when you hear of a cop murdering someone, and receiving a lighter sentence because the judge took his past “service” into account.

You are the same people who pretend to feel bad for these tragic victims of police violence, but then turn around and say, “but of course, we need government police! The world would be chaos without them” even as government police everywhere are beating, killing, violating civil and/or constitutional rights, and committing crimes. Even though basic logic dictates that government police by definition will always lack accountability, and be far more open to corruption and abuse because government police cannot easily be fired, replaced, or punished. This is also demonstrated by the Herald-Tribune report.

The Herald-Tribune reported the number of serious violations is far higher than state records would reflect, as  local agencies failed to report cases and faced no consequences for neglecting to do so. (What a surprise – you mean the government doesn’t want government agents to look bad? It can’t be!) In fact, the Union County Sheriff’s office hasn’t reported a single instance of misconduct in about 26 years.

Further, it was extraordinarily difficult to fire officers who repeatedly misbehaved. One Frederick Currie had a history of domestic violence, and was even arrested for child abuse. He was also involved in stalking an ex-girlfriend, as well as sexual battery. Officials attempted to fire him twice, but were unsuccessful, because of of police union power, and state laws which clearly favor police officers over ordinary peons. Some of the crimes by police may be occasional or rare, but the law and the system’s preferential and lenient treatment of murderous, violent, and criminal officers is not an accident.

Currie may only be one man, but remember that thousands of officers were exposed by this Florida report, and that in one agency, not one case of misconduct had been reported for 26 years. This is not a freak occurrence. This is not a case of a few bad apples. This is an institutional and intentional result of government monopoly over protection services.

Thus, anything short of calling for complete abolition of government police, is a pathetically apologetic stance toward police brutality. Anything short of advocacy for the end of government police is in effect sympathy for institutionalized rape, murder, and plunder.

  • roy mustang jr

    i cant wait to see what the copfuckers have to say the comments from them should be funny

  • Shigman

    Wow this article is stupid. This is just as ignorant as someone saying anyone supporting CopBlock supports murderers, rapists, druggies, and a lawless society(which isn’t far from the truth). Seriously you people don’t belong in America

  • George Sand

    Shigman, to prove my article is stupid/wrong you have to demonstrate these things:

    1. Government police is not a forcible monopoly which leads to poor customer service and difficulty in punishing and firing bad police
    2. The legal system and laws do not treat police better than ordinary people.

    Saying you support the system of government police, but not police brutality, is like saying you support a dictatorship but not the abuse of civil liberties.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    Watch how the PigThug treats a 60-year old 5’2″ woman.

    ‘In September 2010 Sgt Andrews was found guilty of causing Ms Somerville actual bodily harm and was jailed for six months.

    Sgt Andrews spent six days in prison but was bailed ahead of an appeal at Oxford Crown Court which he later won in November 2010.

    His conviction was quashed after the appeal judge felt satisfied that Sgt Andrews did not intend to throw Ms Somerville into the cell.’

    Do you seriously believe that would have happened if that was a member of the public caught assaulting the woman in that way? This pig – and that is the title this thug deserves – has since been reinstated and has demanded all back pay (which he will be given).

    ‘basic logic dictates that government police by definition will always lack accountability, and be far more open to corruption and abuse because government police cannot easily be fired, replaced, or punished.’ Exactly.
    Do we seriously believe a private protection force would risk the bad PR of giving a thug like this his job back?
    The above example in the video clip is just one more reason why the police should be filmed constantly. Here is another

    Please remind me someone what happened to to the killers of Jean Charles de Menezes?

    I hate hippies and I would disband state police tomorrow.

  • paschn

    Too many “lemmings” for too long laughed at, belittled, ridiculed the TRUE patriots that tried to warn people, literally for decades, that what “the tribe” pulled in in Russia, Germany et al was rapidly making it’s way here. What the TRUE patriots failed to see was, those who ridiculed etc, also knew it was coming. Infact they positioned themselves to BENEFIT from the collapse of the United States of Israel. They knew all along and we never saw it. They’ve sold out their people, country, justice… Just as swine of their ilk did during the fight for decent pay, benefits, collective bargaining etc. They merrily burned women and children ALIVE to curry favor with their masters. We all know these stains as “police” or in moments of irrational feelings of the “warm and fuzzies, “our boys”.

    Well, soon, these sycophants will be in their glory, staining their blue undies as they round up innocent citizens, put them through God knows what with no more compassion than they had for the screams of the woman and children they barbaqued in Ludlow or the miners they murdered for their masters in the Eastern states.

    “Welcome, to Fright-night…for reals”


    Very soon, you’ll see your “heroes” in action. The really perverted ones will be easy to spot, they’ll be the ones smiling as they slaughter, beat us to submission, or worse.

  • tz

    So, if a single ‘voluteerist’ ever once behaves badly, supporting volunteerism is supporting rape, murder, and the extinction of polar bears?

  • George Sand

    @TZ –
    What part of these entire two paragraphs did you not read, or not understand?

    “…Officials attempted to fire him twice, but were unsuccessful, because of of POLICE UNION POWER, and STATE LAWS which clearly favor police officers over ordinary peons. Some of the crimes by police may be occasional or rare, but THE LAW AND THE SYSTEM’S PREFERENTIAL AND LENIENT TREATMENT OF murderous, violent, and criminal officers IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.

    Currie may only be one man, but remember that THOUSANDS of officers were exposed by this Florida report, and that in one agency, not one case of misconduct had been reported for 26 years. THIS IS NOT A FREAK OCCURRENCE. This is not a case of a few bad apples. This is an INSTITUTIONAL and intentional result of government monopoly over protection services….”

    Now, you care to explain to me how “Volunteerists” have state laws, union policies, lobbying power, and institutional power on their side? You care to explain to me how laws are crafted favorably for “Volunteerists”? How about you give me just ONE example of how the system, the laws, the judges, society, and/or media intentionally favors “Volunteerists” over ordinary people, and intentionally refuses to hold them accountable for misbehavior? Just ONE. I challenge you. Then, your comment might sound slightly less absurd.

  • killer

    You fucking people are pathetic.

  • http://n/a Common Sense

    Even trying to follow your opinion was a struggle. On its face, its simple terrible journalism. I can’t blame you thought, your not a journalist.

    Perfect example at how defunct your letter is. I used my Constitutional right and voted for a elected public official, a Sheriff to be exact. But I am supporting murder? There has not been a police shooting in 70 years in this county. Your article is laughable.

  • AlvinB

    Shigman: you’re the one who doesn’t belong here, trampling the great principles of our country. Go to China or Russia where you’d find yourself right at home.
    Killer: I believe you just created a perfect epitaph for yourself.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    CS ‘ I can’t blame you thought, your not a journalist.’
    …and you’re not a speller.

  • Anon

    It’s these kind of articles (at the very least the title and end statement) that really hurt the legitimacy of this website, and is one reason more and more people aren’t taking you seriously anymore.

    Nobody denies that are there are problematic government officials and police, but to make such a ridiculous and outlandish statement that “anyone who supports them supports rape, murder and plunder” is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen in a long time on here.

    That would be like saying “If you support prostitution, then you support the willful spreading of STDs and the abuse of women and child sex slavery.”.

    You see where that kind of logic fails? When someone says they support something, you can’t make that suggestion that they also support all the consequences of it.

    You can support something, but still be against those who abuse it. For instance, if you support freedom, you don’t support people who abuse freedom in a way that allows them to cause trouble for other people. By that same logic, you can support police and even government police, but not support those who abuse that authority.

    I’ve heard many people who support the idea of a privatized security force… and yet, they could be just as bad as the state and federal regulated police.

    The bottom line is, these kinds of broad generalizations are just going to make the legitimacy of this site and ones like it go way down and not be taken seriously be anyone.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    ‘Anon’ –

    ‘I’ve heard many people who support the idea of a privatized security force… and yet, they could be just as bad as the state and federal regulated police.’

    You obviously haven’t read the article or indeed the comments that followed it. Why not?

    ‘and is one reason more and more people aren’t taking you seriously anymore.’ Weazel words – evidenced by ???
    What’s that, like a Fox News ‘some people say…’ ?

    And should we take someone seriously who doesn’t want to stand by their own words by using their name?

    If you are GENUINELY interested in arguments about state police v private protection agency check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom

  • Anon


    My name shouldn’t matter, it’s the opinion that matters. Sites like this lose credibility, and lose it fast by making ridiculous statements and posting articles such as this that contain those same sentiments.

    My point still stands however:

    You cannot make the assumption that someone who supports something, supports every consequence that it entails. Simply refer back to my previous point regarding Prostitution. I could easily make the claim that, if you support it, you’re also supporting violence against women and child sex slavery, based upon the fact that those are real consequences of it.

    But that kind of logic doesn’t work. You can support a women’s (or even a Man’s) right to have sex with who they want for money, without supporting the negative aspects of it aswell.

    In that same sense, you can support government police, or even police in general, without supporting those who abuse their authority or supporting the flaws in the system.

    Anyone who says otherwise simply lacks a real argument and feels the need to make such an exaggerated claim to try to “win” an argument/debate.

  • Frank


    At minimum, you support violence against peaceful people to force them to pay the salaries of police that harm them with little to no consequences.

    Voluntaryists are against the initiation of violence whether the perpetrator is government or not.

  • George Sand

    “You cannot make the assumption that someone who supports something, supports every consequence that it entails.”

    Yes, that is generally true, if the consequences entailed are remote, unforeseeable, tangential, or a freak occurrence. For instance, leaving your house could result in you slipping on a banana peel, cracking your head open, and dying. But this is not a reasonable, foreseeable, immediate, or necessary consequence of allowing people to leave their houses.

    On the other hand, IT IS A FACT that laws are crafted to give leniency to law enforcement. IT IS A FACT that the media, the system, and many members of juries respect police and give them more credibility than an average person. IT IS A FACT that police have immunities when they injure, hurt, or abuse people. IT IS A FACT that police unions wield considerable power and IT IS A FACT that it is much harder to get fired as a police officer who commits crimes, than as some other person who has committed crimes. Thus, these ARE NECESSARY, IMMEDIATE, CERTAIN consequences of government police, not tangential, possible, remote, or unforeseeable consequences of government police.

    Similarly, it is not unreasonable to say that if you support the criminalization of drugs, you support a police state, mass incarceration, the punishment of victimless crimes, and the deaths, murder, and violence that come with the drug war. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to say that if you supported communism in China, you supported the 40 million starvation deaths, the robberies, and the destruction that came along with Mao’s rule. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to say that if you supported the Iraq war, or war of any kind, that you supported the killing of innocent civilians, which is inevitable in any war.

    And if you’d like to use prostitution as an example, I’ll say this – if you support criminalization of prostitution, you support the rape, murder, and abuse of women, and you support sex trafficking.

  • George Sand

    Oh, and I’d just like to say – I’m pretty sure it’s readers like Anon and Shigman that make this site “lose credibility,” with their faulty logic and conflation of issues, not my writing.

  • George Sand

    This is what you people sound like – “OMg, I totally supported Hitler, but I had NO CLUE that so many jews would die! I cannot be blamed!” Or, “I totally love dictatorships, and think that anyone in power should be in power for life, but I am SHOCKED, COMPLETELY SHOCKED that someone would actually abuse that power and oppress people!” That is exactly what you sound like. You are faced with these FACTS –
    1. Immunities for police that allow them to evade responsibility
    2. Laws crafted specifically to give police leniency
    3. A system that favors police
    4. Laws and union regulations that make it difficult to fire bad police

    And you go – what? Really? Police will abuse their power? They might rape, murder, and rob with immunity… NO WAY! I DON’T GET IT!

  • http://www.rashynullplanet.com/blog/ Matt

    Stanley Milgram is alive and well:

    Blindly obeying arbitrary authority is so easy and so enticing because it appears to insulate you from responsibility your actions and relieve you of the responsibility to think for yourself.

    “I didn’t intend for Native Americans to be slaughtered. I just voted for people who made it happen.”:

    “I didn’t intend for Japanese Americans to be interned. I just voted for people who made it happen.”:

    And on and on and on and on and on.

    “I didn’t intend for cops to be unaccountable.”

    But here we are.

    You imagine every cop is your best buddy.

    You imagine every cop will always help you.

    You imagine every cop has a pure heart.

    Milgram and many tens of thousands of tax-feeding sadist cops prove you wrong.

    Cops, like most everyone else, are easily corrupted beyond repair by the siren of arbitrary authority and insulation from accountability.

    They follow arbitrary orders while ignoring their conscience. Even worse are the creatures who use cops to inflict their preferences on other people.

    Cops wouldn’t be tax-fed cops if they didn’t imagine that you need to be controlled by them.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    I think there should be a comma after Milgram. Excellent point, though Matt. I think Stanley Milgram’s experiments should be a lesson to us all. The most common mistake made by statists is to assume that commies/Nazis/the other political party/etc have power it’s OK, but when they have power it’s somehow OK (‘cos we’re the good guys, right?’. When an American bomb blows up a wedding party in Iraq/wherever it’s ‘collateral damage’ – when the twin towers are destroyed, it’s terrorism.

    Watch the Milgram experiments on YouTube or read about them or watch Derren Brown conduct the same experiments more recently.

  • MSS

    There’s one thing I don’t get: How will you control private police? Corporations do whatever they want and we can’t do jack because they’re “private”, plus they’re loaded and can hire corporate lawyers. What of the poor and disenfranchised? I sincerely want to understand.

  • George Sand

    @MSS – corporations do what they want because they are heavily tied to government. I don’t advocate large, corporate entity-style police with lobbying power, government handouts, government bailouts, and government contracts. By private I mean, literally private. Meaning they are not funded by taxpayers, get no government immunities, no government bailouts, etc. This is a very brief answer to a very good question, but I suggest you start here, with Paula’s article, that addresses your concerns, particularly about the poor and the disenfranchised. http://www.copblock.org/4899/but-what-about-blackwater/

  • Anon

    How many companies have management that manipulate and otherwise harass the employees under them? How many instances have there been where teachers abused their position of authority to abuse the kids in their class (sexual or physical)? How many parents abuse their children across the country, simply because they have more “power” over them?

    The problem isn’t a government issue, it’s Human Nature. You can’t change human nature. There will always be people in a position of authority or power who abuse that power. Private Companies are no exception. People might say “but we can punish them!”. Great, punish them. But don’t expect that abuse to stop. Refer back to my 1st paragraph. Those things have been happening for decades, despite punishments.

    Does that mean we shouldn’t try to stop it, or at least limit it? Of course not. But if anyone is serious about stopping it, you first need to actually put it into perspective and not exaggerate the claims, like this post is doing with it’s claim that “those who support x support everything else that occurs with it.”.

    If you want to stop something, you first need to have a clear understanding of what you’re trying to stop. As I said, exaggerated claims will not help that cause.

    I’m sure everyone here can agree that racial profiling is wrong and doesn’t work. Afterall, how can we make the claim that everyone who is of a particular race acts a certain way and supports certain things? We can’t. Likewise, you can’t make the claim that this article makes either.

    Most people believe some kind of police force is necessary, whether it’s government or privatized (genuine privatized, not like Blackwater). Neither supports the ABUSE of that force, but they support having some kind of system in place to control criminal behavior.

  • AlvinB

    Anon: Private companies, unlike government entities, do not answer directly to the citizens. The comparison only works to obfuscate the issue being discussed..

  • James Oliver Deckard

    How do government entities answer DIRECTLY to ‘the citizens’ ?!

  • AlvinB

    James: The government entities answer to the elected bodies, which is the same for the purpose of this discussion, as citizens can exercise their influence by voting.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    ‘The government entities answer to the elected bodies, which is the same for the purpose of this discussion, as citizens can exercise their influence by voting.’

    No. Noone voted for the Iraq war in the UK. There was no vote, no ‘influencing’. A huge public protest against it which made no difference.
    And I said DIRECTLY.

    Back to the article; I don’t want or need the state police ‘protection’, I don’t want monies extorted from me so they can piss money up the wall on some phoney ‘war on drugs’.
    The ‘protection’ afforded by the state thugs has not only proved woefully inadequate but downright dangerous. When someone followed my gf home and tried to break into my house to get to her the 999 call to the state police proved useless. Two calls and noone came. Of course we are not allowed to provide our own protection – no private guns allowed in the UK so she was to wait to be raped or murdered or both. The local copshop was less than a mile away. I was the other side of London and of course got home first. The
    The point is, we don’t WANT the state police, we don’t NEED the state police, they are mostly fat, stupid, useless thugs. During the recent London riots (google it) they proved themselves cowards as well. In the end it was local citizens and shopkeepers who banded together to see off the rioters and thieves. The police ran away. It was locals who banded together to organise a clear up after the riots.
    If a private protection force employed had performed as poorly they would be answerable DIRECTLY by being sacked, simply by refusing to renew the dues.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    ‘Londoners took to the streets to protect their neighbourhoods on Tuesday night after Britain’s worst rioting in a generation. A group of anti-rioters marched through Enfield, in north London, aiming to deter looters. “We are the Enfield anti-rioting squad,” said one local resident. “You want to riot our place, we will riot you mate. This is our area not your area.” Another Enfield resident said his fellow vigilantes were the “people that are London, not the small minority that are going around smashing up stuff, that have got nothing to wake up for in the morning.”‘

  • James Oliver Deckard
  • James Oliver Deckard


    The police did nothing. They are worse than useless because people don’t provide for their own protection thinking that the state police will be there for them.
    As we know the state police are only good for attacking unarmed newspaper sellers

  • AlvinB

    James: obviously voting can sometimes only work after the fact. Direct protests are also a useful tool, but not the one we expect to be a routine means of citizen participation. And it seems that most of what your wrote this time is simply an attempt to distort the meaning of the original post.

  • James Oliver Deckard

    Not at all. See the Ian Tomlinson link, no distortion of the meaning of the original post. I didn’t write about any ‘direct protests’.
    ‘routine means of citizen participation’ We don’t need any ‘citizen participation’ – just the means to protect ourselves and make any private measures as we see fit.

  • MSS

    @George Sand: Thank you for your response.