The following article was submitted to us by Eric, who originally posted it at EricPetersAutos.com.
Cops are the enemy.
A harsh – and global – statement, certainly.
But: Is it true?
Consider the nature of the job. It is to enforce the law. By definition. It is not to protect any specific individual – you or me – from harm. It is certainly not to serve – other than as automata who . . . enforces the law. Whatever the law is, it must be enforced. The cop will tell you so himself. He is merely doing his job – and his job is . . . to enforce the law. Period. “The law is the law.” We have all heard it. It does not matter whether the law is itself outrageous, or simply stupid. He may even freely confess it.
But he will nonetheless enforce it. He is required to enforce it.
Consider that for a moment.
In a doctrinal way, the cop is exactly like the people who were – rightly – strung up at Nuremburg after WWII, who stated – truthfully – that they were just following the orders issued by the lawfully constituted authority. They were not merely thugs. They were duly appointed thugs. They did not do the awful things they did at random, on their own nickel - so to speak. They were told to do it – agreed to do it – and went ahead and did it. Any questions they may personally have had about the rightness or wrongness of what they were doing were put aside.
Orders are orders.
And it is no great leap to go from abusing your fellow man in a small way to doing it in a big way. The principle of the thing is what matters. And the principle is now very well-established indeed.
The rest is merely follow-up. A cop who will pull a gun on you for refusing to wear a seatbelt will do much worse when the time comes. When he is ordered to.
When the law demands it.
So, what sort of man volunteers for such work? Who chooses to enforce the law – whatever the law happens to be?
The answer is – must be – a thug. A person who is both unthinking – and brutal. But worse than merely a thug, because a mere thug beats you up because he wants your money – or just for the pure sick joy of it. What sort of person does the same things because he’s told to do them? Who does them, even when he personally may not want to? When he has doubts about the rightness of the thing? But who is nonetheless willing to literally kill a fellow human being over – if the law tells him he must?
Place yourself for a moment in a cop’s shoes – as distasteful an exercise as that may be.
You are told to man a “safety” checkpoint at which it will be your job to threaten everyone who happens to be on that particular road with lethal violence if they do not stop their vehicle, produce identification and submit to an interrogation as to their comings and goings. These innocent people – who have given you no reason to suspect them of having done anything wrong – must submit to your orders, must obey your commands. If they passively decline to do so – if they merely assert their ancient right as human beings to be left in peace – you will apply force. You will bash open their window if they decline to roll it down. You will drag them through the window if they refuse to comply with your orders to exit the vehicle. If they in any way attempt to fend off your brutal, unprovoked assault – you may kill them.
You are told to break up a “protest” – even though the “protestors” are entirely peaceful and merely exercising their right to air a grievance. Yet you join the thug scrum, with billy clubs and truncheons.
You are ordered to kick in the door of a private residence and drag the occupant out of his bed at gunpoint – because this person is alleged to be in possession of a substance the state has arbitrarily declared to be “illegal.”
You will shoot him to death if he “resists.”
You spend several hours each day manning a radar gun, issuing your fellow human beings stiff fines you know many of them cannot afford, which will place a great burden on their ability to pay the rent or put food on the table for their families, for conduct you yourself do routinely (e.g., “speed”) and which you know perfectly well to be harmless. But if they object, you will pile on.
What sort of person signs up for such work?
The foregoing is merely a small sampling of countless scores of similar examples we’re all well-familiar with. A cop’s work is to arrest and cage people who do not obey the law. Nothing less. Their human rights be damned. If they object, if they resist, the cop has license under the law to assault them.
To kill them.
It is a fair summary – as awful as it may be to deal with it, emotionally – even intellectually.
It is simply not possible for a morally decent person to choose this line of work – or at least, to continue in this line of work, having come to grips with the nature of the work. Because it is a line of work that requires the surrender of one’s humanity – of the thing that makes a human being other than an animal. That is, your ability to choose to do the right thing – and to do it.
To become a cop is to give that up. To become an enforcer. To do as you are told. To become a sadist, if need be.
If the law so commands it.
Just as the law commanded in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. As it is commanding here.
A guy might be a friendly neighbor – and seem like a good person. In a way, he might be a good person – to his family, those he knows personally. But when he puts on that costume, he will threaten harmless, innocent fellow human beings with lethal violence, cage them, rob them of their dignity, violate their rights as human beings – if the law so commands it.
This person, this cop, will demand immediate submission to a literally endless litany of tyrannical edicts – or else. Exactly like a a member of the GRU, or the NKVD.
And such people are lauded by this society as heroes for this! (Just as they were lauded as heroes – literally – of the old Soviet Union.)
For abusing middle-aged women half their size. Old men. Shooting people’s dogs in the name of “officer safety.”
Would it not be heroic to refuse to do such things?
To decline to enforce the law when the law is at odds with natural law? Even if it meant the loss of one’s paycheck? Even if it meant becoming yourself the target of law enforcement – for having declined to enforce the law?
Of course, few cops are willing to step up in this manner. To be real heroes – by taking a stand for what is right, and with their fellow human beings as opposed to being the strutting – but simpering – tools of a malevolent system they are too afraid to question.
…Much less take a meaningful stand against.
A system that rewards them for brutalizing others.
Do cops do some good (honest, morally clean) work? Certainly. But it is increasingly incidental. It does not negate the everyday abuses they routinely commit. If an abusive husband who beats his wife daily one day rescues her from a burning car, does that make him any less a cretin?
I, like many others, instinctively want to support police. Rather, I want to support those who try to keep the peace. The police were at one time at least nominally in the peace-keeping business. To a great (or at least much greater extent than today) they left people who were not actual criminals (thieves, those who committed physical assaults, murderers, etc.) alone. There were, of course, petty infractions one had to mind – but generally, the average person could live his life with little, if any, significant worry about the law – or its enforcers. It took quite a bit to justify a cop unholstering (much less using) his weapon. People did not get threatened with lethal violence for politely declining an order to “buckle up for safety” – because such an order would have been inconceivable in the America of the not-so-distant past. Anyone much over 40 will remember this rapidly receding world. Cops had some sense of proportion – and would have felt ashamed to do the things they are now called upon to do routinely.
And which they do all-too-willingly.
Imagine: A Fourth (and Fifth) Amendment that was respected by the cops – and if not by them, then by the courts, certainly. Cops used to have to have a reason – not a hunch, but a specific cause – to stop you, much less force you to submit to a search. If they could not produce a substantive reason, then they had to leave you alone – and if they did not live you alone, then whatever they did to you would have consequences. For them.
Now, it is the reverse.
The courts have conferred upon cops essentially limitless and unaccountable authority – which means, open season on us. They are empowered to do literally anything, for any (or no) reason at all, beyond their desire to do so. Beyond, it is the law. The cop is merely doing his job.
And if we have nothing to hide, why worry?
Thanks for pointing this out, fella.
For all those stupid and naive people who still think or believe the phrase “the police is here to protect you”.
Police is NOT here to protect anyone.
They are here to E-N-F-O-R-C-E [did you get it? en-FORCE].
——————————————–
From Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary:
—————-
en·force\in-ˈfȯrs, en-\
transitive verb
1 : to give force to : strengthen
2 : to urge with energy
3 : constrain, compel
4 obsolete : to effect or gain by force
5 : to carry out effectively
Examples
Police will be enforcing the parking ban.
the duty of the police is to enforce the law
Origin: Middle English, from Anglo-French enforcer, from en- + force force.
First use: 14th century
—————————————-
That’s the mission of the police. It’s not going out to “make friends” or pretend to be nice, it’s to en-FORCE whatever Law is passed by the States or the Feds regardless these Laws are just outrageous or just plain stupid.
During the 40′s, 50′s the police/community relations were very different from what they are today, as my grandad used to tell me.
Police officers were called “PEACE OFFICERS” and they were part of the community whose main duty was to PROTECT and SERVE their communities.
Fast forward today, and…they are no longer even called “peace officers” anymore.
They are called LAW ENFORCERS from here the phrase LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
So their mission, to enforce whatever Law are passed down our throats whether those Laws are right or wrong.
So, bottom line, police is not your fiend but the State enforcers and revenue collectors.
————
Carlos
There is good and evil. The law has always been an ass, but has recently dropped the pretentions to something higher.
In his “letter from a Birmingham jail” Martin Luther King, jr quoted Thomas Aquinas noting “an unjust law is no law”.
Originally, they were called “Peace Officers”, because they kept the peace. Not arbitrary statutes or precedents. If someone would try to disrupt things by fraud, violence, or even nuisance, they would act, but to de-escalate.
Today they pull the taser at the least provocation.
I don’t blame them no more than the cells in the body of someone with an autoimmune disease. Courts and the legislature have corrupted the law. Often at the behest of the people. So those who ought to keep the peace instead destroy it. Who should protect, victimize. Who should be heroes defending the weak and innocent become thugs exploiting weakness and considering guilt irrelevant.
It is your neighbors that want and support the corruption of the law. Just as “guns don’t kill, people kill”, Police represent and act on the instructions of the corrupt, cheating, evil citizens. Perhaps you can educate your neighbors. And reform the law. Then they can become peace officers again.
I love the constant references to Nazi Germany. Some of you should actually study the history instaed of just posting BS like that. It shows nothing but ignorance. Don’t comare dictatorships to democracies. Not even close to the same thing.
Not if the democracy is only for a select few. And the analogy is somewhat correct, in that nazi scumbags did whatever they wanted to people, secure in the knowledge that they were “above” any existing law. So exactly what is this huge difference that a good history student would understand? Or do you just have a tough time understanding metaphors?
A letter written from a naive and uneducated viewpoint, nothing else.
Written based on the real-life performance of modern US law enforcement.
Also, Germany was a democracy when the Nazis were elected to power.
This article certainly paints the police in a harsh light; but perhaps it is the harsh light of truth? Take a look at the video posted here:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video
and judge for yourself.
t., how is this letter “naive” and/or “uneducated”? (without perpetuating an ad hominem fallacy against the writer,of course)
Hitler was not elected to power. Paul von Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor of Germany and died soon after. Then Hitler appointed himself “Führer und Reichskanzler” Which means “Leader and Chancellor of the Realm.” Learn some history.
@JQP
O.k., so Hitler was not elected; the countries don’t share the same name, either. So what. This does not invalidate the similarities between the rise of the Nazi party and the way events are unfolding in this country; there are way more similarities than differences in the two. Stop nitpicking the details in an effort to overturn the comparison. It may, or may not, come to the same end, but as a country we are definitely taking steps along the same path that Germany once traveled. Learn some critical thinking skills.
There is no comparison, just your conspiracy theories. The Nazis did not come into power until Hitler abolished the government after he was appointed chancellor. Is that what you see Obama doing? Or is that what you see Romney trying to do? Where is the great uprising you speak of? Is it the Occupy movement? People have more rights than ever. You’re the one nitpicking.
I speak of no great uprising, and hold no conspiracy theories – as I said, it may, or may not, come to the same end. We are, however, as a nation, adopting many of the ideals and procedures that the Nazi party utilized, beginning with the curtailing of travel (can you say “papers please?”) and the loss of security within your own home. You say we have more rights than ever, yet now we can’t travel freely, without governmental interference – a constitutionally guaranteed right, until recently vigorously upheld by the courts – and cops can invade our homes with no evidence of wrongdoing, or even a warrant, with impunity. How about stop and frisk laws without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? How about the severe limitations placed on protestors, another constitutionally guaranteed right? Those rights that you claim we have more of than ever are actually disappearing at an accelerated pace. And we are not getting new ones to replace them, they’re just gone. So how, exactly, do we have more than ever?
As far as nitpicking: you are trying to state that this country is not on the same path as Nazi Germany since the specifics are not identical. Have you ever heard the phrase “All Roads lead To Rome”?
Just because we are not walking the exact same path does not mean that we are not marching toward the same destination. This country is veering dangerously close to the ideals espoused by the greatest villains of this age.
Compare the U.S.A. during the 1920′s, 1930′s, 1940′s and…the U.S.A. today [as of 2012].
Do you really think we have “more freedoms” as of today than our grandparents had during those decades? If you just responded “YES”, then you’re likely the most naive human being I’ve met in several years.
Other than the African-Americans [who fought for their civil rights (MLK)], the rest of the population enjoyed more freedoms during those years with less interference from the Government than they enjoy today.
Even cops, were called “peace officers” whose primary mission was to serve & protect their communities. Today, they are just the “enforcers” whose only mission is to shove the Laws down our throats whether these are justified or outrageous.
There is some parallelism between the Nazi Germany and what where we as a whole are heading today. It might not happen during this generation but, if this trend continues at the rate it is, our grandchildren will witness something very similar to what the Germans had to endure during 1933-1945.
Do yourself a favor and read “1984″ by George Orwell. You’ll see similarities on where we are heading now regardless Democrats or Republicans come into power.
Carlos
As the crisis in the Eurozone only worsens, the American financial system will continue to be hit hard. On the way to a full-blown collapse, Americans should expect society to alter accordingly. Riots will hit the streets, and as a result, it will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.
The recent adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act, if approved, have already very well paved the way for such a society. Under the NDAA, the US government is allowed to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens suspected of terror crimes without ever bringing them to trial. Should lawmakers Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) get their Enemy Expatriation Act through Congress, the US will also be able to simply revoke citizenship without trial, essentially removing constitutional rights from anyone deemed a threat.
As inequality becomes more rampant in America, the country’s citizens are becoming increasingly agitated with those on the other side of the extreme. In a recent survey released by the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of the adults studied believe that either “very strong” or “strong” conflicts exist between America’s elite and the impoverished, a statistic that has skyrocketed in recent years.
With almost seven percent of Americans living below half of the poverty line, four unemployed Americans for each job, a shrinking middle class and an increasingly overzealous police state, it could very well be a tough road ahead.
—————————————————
Carlos
The Law- Section 1021
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
This refers to the AUMF, passed shortly after September 11, 2001. The intention of the AUMF was to catch and prosecute the planners of 9/11, and those who harbored them- Osama Bin Laden, Al Quaeda and the Taliban.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. The US is now in talks with the Taliban after 10 years of war.
See the AUMF for yourself:
(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
This paragraph starts out by reiterating the authority granted to the President under the AUMF, the power to detain those involved in the execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It then expands this authority, extending it to allow him to detain any person that he feels has committed a belligerent act. What is a “belligerent act”?
The fact is that the term “belligerent” can be taken to mean many different things. This is one of the main criticisms of the law. What is a belligerent act? You’ll have to ask the President.
Feinstein and Paul try (unsuccessfully) to clear things up:
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.-The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
Pay close attention to (1)- “the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force” refers to the undeclared “War on Terror”. Basically, the President is required to release his detainees when the War on Terror ends. Since the War on Terror is indefinite, the 2012 NDAA allows the President to hold detainees indefinitely, without the requirement of a trial.
This would appear to directly contradict the 6th amendment requirement for a “speedy and public trial.”
Click here to read the 6th Amendment
(d) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.-The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be “covered persons” for purposes of subsection (b)(2). H. R. 1540-266
Carlos, if you read that, it says nothing about law enforcement arresting anyone. This is strictly for the military. The military cannot arrest anyone in the USA due to Posse Comitatus.
Not sure why you try JQP this is mostly just a group of hoods that need someone to hate so they rail against the only authority figure they have access to: the Police.
To the author: Written factlessly like a true Nazi Propagandist. Are you sure you didn’t hate Jews in a former life?