Last January while working in his store J&G Pet Foods a couple of thugs came in and kidnapped him. They demanded $500,000 that deadbeat Jeffrey Muller apparently owed their boss for a failed golf course development deal in Utah. The only problem is that they kidnapped the wrong Jeffrey Muller. The person they were actually looking for was Jeffrey Muller a millionaire New York money broker.

Jeffrey was able to escape his captors after their car broke down in Missouri although he was left shaken and scared.  What he did next is what any rational person would do who was in fear for their life and applied for his concealed carry license so he could obtain a firearm to protect his family and himself. Unfortunately an illiterate Judge or one that has just never read the 2nd Amendment denied his permit.

Superior Court Judge David Ironson denied his appeal for a firearms permit saying now that his captors have been caught “there is no longer a threat of serious bodily harm.” Muller doesn’t agree, thinking that the family’s of the five kidnappers might try to seek revenge and come after him.

After the hearing Jensen, Muller’s attorney said he will continue to pursue a federal lawsuit but hasn’t decided if he will take the case to the New Jersey appeals court.

Why is this even an issue? Jeffrey has shown that his life is in danger but the state refuse to allow him to defend himself. Should he be forced to depend on the police to protect him even though the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm?

Jeffrey, if you read this we welcome you down here in Florida where officials understand the need for and allow persons to carry a firearm. You should not be forced to depend on people with a badge who have no obligation to protect you. There’s an old saying “why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.”

Kidnapped and left with no other choice is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The above audio was recorded by Mark Fiorino in Philadelphia while on his way to Auto Zone. Mark posted in a PA forum that,

“I was visiting my mother today in Philadelphia to help her around the house and spend time with her. While there, I walked over to the local AutoZone to pick up a part for my car. I was OC due to the (finally) gorgeous weather.

I have learned to always keep my recorder on me and recording when I am in public in Philadelphia, due to the over-zealous nature of the police, and today, I am glad I followed that rule.

As I walked down the street towards the store, I caught a glimpse of a Philadelphia Police cruiser out of the corner of my eye, traveling in the same direction I was.

A few moments later, I hear a vehicle’s transmission roughly slam into “P” very close by.

“Hey, Junior!” comes a voice from the other side of the squad car.

“Junior?!” I replied, as I turned around. I thought to myself, that’s kind of a condescending way to greet someone, isn’t it? As I turned, I prepared to ask the police officer what I could help him with.

It was then that I noticed the officer had his gun trained on my chest.

At least seven officers, 5 squad cars, and a threat of a taser later, I found out what it was like to sit in the back of a paddywagon.”

As I listened to this audio I held my hands to my head, expecting the officer to shoot Mark for refusing to comply with orders. Does anyone else notice how the officer, who has years of training, was the one out of control and that Mark, the ‘regular Joe,’ was the relaxed and reasonable one. Aren’t cops supposed to act like Mark did and the bad guys like that cop was? When did cops start talking like the bad guys? “Get on your Fucking knees or I’ll shoot you!” That’s something bad guys say… Great work Mark, you have some major Cojones, man.

Mark Fiorino Nearly Shot By Philly PD for Open Carrying is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

It looks like the jury in one New York City gun case may have decided to vote according to what they feel is right, as opposed to what the judge, DA, and prosecutors say is illegal.

The jury took only thirty minutes to come to a not guilty verdict, acquitting Jonathan Ryan of any crime for having his legally purchased and registered Florida handgun inside New York City limits.

The 29-year-old had been indicted for criminal weapons possession and he admittedly motored into Manhattan on Feb. 21, 2010, with a 9mm pistol stored in his truck’s glove compartment.

The suspect could have faced 3½ years in prison had jurors convicted him for his ill-fated journey into Gotham.

I personally feel this should have never gone to trial, as the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the “right to keep and bear arms,” free from any government infringement. Unfortunately, the police state of NY feels differently (apparently unbound by the supposed “Supreme Law of the Land”). Here is what the District Attorney, who thinks law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves with guns, had to say:

DA Cy Vance was unapologetic about his office’s failed prosecution.

“We respect the jury’s verdict in this case, of course, and thank them for their service. But we will continue to protect our community from those who illegally possess loaded guns in Manhattan. Any possession of a loaded firearm in this metropolitan area has the potential for deadly consequences, to our residents and visitors alike.”

“Guns brought illegally into New York City – for any reason – violate well-established state law and are a threat to our public safety,’’ he said

Well he might be right, let’s take a look at Mr. anti-2nd amendment himself, NYC Mayor Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg, who is the real criminal, you or me? I cannot carry my legal firearm in NYC, but you and your staff can. And recently, one of your employees’ guns, “officially” permitted in order to protect you, was just used in the attempted murder of an innocent, and unarmed (because of NYC’s strict guns laws) person.

“NYPD officer Leopold McLean, who had long worked on security detail for Mayor Bloomberg, has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting his girlfriend’s ex-lover and then trying to cover it up … Other charges against McLean include assault, criminal use of a firearm and reckless endangerment …”

Ouch! That doesn’t look good does it? Hiring murders to protect yourself, while telling us we can’t protect ourselves. I just hope more juries vote like this one did, and push to nullify the oppressive laws that politicians like Bloomberg support. Great work citizens of NY!

Was This a Case of Jury Nullification Working in NYC? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This second video is what the local news station reported about the event. Do you notice the difference?

An Armed Society Is A Safe Society.

TAG Activists Cop Block Austin Police – While Buying Guns is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

By Nick Foley

Self-defense laws are contradictory. Our supposed “leaders” love to bellow loudly about respecting Individual Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America while quietly taking away those rights described within it. Like a third-rate magician performing a cheap trick, the modern politician will turn up the music and wave one hand in the air, while the other hand is under the table reaching for the fixed deck of cards.

In the realm of self-defense, the Constitution, which the politician will claim to value, states that “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is widely accepted to mean that the restrictions regarding the ownership and carrying of firearms are unlawful. True freedom-loving people do and should consider laws discouraging firearms ownership offensive. Today, carrying a gun without government permission is, in most places, a jail-able offense, regardless of whether or not an actual offense has been committed. While this may be unjust, the politicians don’t stop there. In some cities, you may be put in handcuffs and thrown in a cage for carrying an item far, far less dangerous and deadly than a gun…you will be incarcerated for carrying an item that most would never give a second thought about bringing with them during their day’s activities…an item that has many practical uses beyond self-defense. What is this item? A pocketknife.

I know, because I was arrested last spring in New York City for carrying a small folding blade in my pocket. What was my supposed “offense?” Exiting a subway train between work sites, and walking peacefully past a uniformed officer of the NYPD. In the absence of any real threat, the officer only knew I possessed a pocketknife because of the clip of my knife on the outside of my jean’s pocket. When the officer ripped the knife out of my pocket without my permission, I pulled out my phone and began to videotape the interaction (the officer later claimed that he would not have arrested me if I had not recorded our interaction). You can see the interaction here:

Let’s get something straight: I knew and understood the specific New York City laws concerning knives before I carried one, and followed the law under the expectation that I would be protected by the law. I now know better; that all laws are subject to the personal interpretation of the Police and the Courts. The specific portion of the law under which the officer arrested me for criminal possession of a weapon refers to gravity knives. The law states:

“Gravity knife means any knife that has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device.”

The knife I was carrying was not a gravity knife by definition, since the blade was tightened to the point where one could not simply “flick” it open, rather one must use the opposing hand to open the blade. While one may argue all day about the specifics of what a gravity knife is, and if my knife was or was not a gravity knife under New York law, it really detracts from understanding the fundamental violation here: that a peaceful, non-violent, non-threatening individual can be thrown in jail for simple possession, not offensive use of, a common pocketknife.

Under this interpretation of New York City law, it is legal to carry a menacing 4-inch fixed blade, but illegal to carry a 1-inch folding blade. It is legal to carry a 3-foot long baseball bat, but illegal to carry a 1-foot long defense baton. It is legal to possess a .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle without a permit, but it is illegal to possess a .22 caliber rifle without a permit. See the contradictions?

Fortunately, my personal story of arrest ends anticlimactically; I was jailed for 4 hours, fingerprinted, and released. At my court hearing, I was not even called to the stand: I was simply handed a slip of paper informing me that the “The D.A. has decided not to prosecute” my case. Unfortunately for many others, this kind of story does not end as well. Thousands of non-violent people are incarcerated in the United States each day, for non-crimes ranging from carrying a defense weapon to carrying a certain plant.

The anger and frustration that I felt reminds me of the opening scenes of the original “Rambo” movie, where Rambo is stopped by local police for wearing a buck-knife, is taken to jail for no real reason, then proceeds to fight his way out of the jail. While I am not about about to go “Rambo” on anyone, I do want to stress that wrongful imprisonment, even for just a few hours, is a horrible crime for a government to commit against a citizen.

Self-defense is a universal, moral right which the government must take away if is to maintain its power. An un-armed, vulnerable population is easily controlled. Laws that prohibit an individual’s right to carry weapons of defense only give government the excuse to expand its weapons of offense.

In conclusion, I would like to make a statement that may shock some people: Laws don’t matter. Even if the law is perfect, it is enforced by imperfect beings. In my opinion, the greatest mistake of our generation is to think that freedom can be achieved by elections. The thinking goes: if we could only get Politician X into office, things will change for the better. But to elect better people into government office is to snap a twig off the tree of evil without ever striking the root. As long as there is a monopoly on the use of violence, violence will always be widespread. As long as we hand over all the guns to the state; to political rulers and brutal police, we will always be ruled and utterly, tragically, brutalized.

Visit me at http://www.youtube.com/BookofNick

The Absurdity of Self-Defense Restrictions is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Not surprisingly, in this era where politicians “never let a good crisis go to waste,” a whole host of knee-jerk legislation has been proposed by Representatives and Senators, including everything from a roving 1000 foot “gun-free zone” around all federal officials, no matter where they go (which begs the question, how are we supposed to know? Are they going to roll out a smart phone app with a GPS enabled federal employee beacon? Wouldn’t that create a whole lot MORE security issues than it solves?), to arming every Congresscritter on Capitol Hill, to reinstating the Clinton era assault weapons ban or enacting additional gun control measures that go even further, and finally, going so far as to encase the entire floor of Congress in bullet-proof Plexiglas! All of these measures reveal the extent to which legislators are desperately afraid of the constituents they ostensibly serve, and just how limited their imaginations are beyond measures of command and control as a means to assuage their fears.

While it should be clear to any reasonable person that laws restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms are of no consequence to those hell-bent on causing carnage (after all, there is no legal means to engage in mass-murder, what difference does it make if there’s a waiting period for a handgun, or a limit on magazine capacity? A vehicle or home-made pipe-bomb would have been just as deadly in the hands of someone with nefarious intent), lawmakers have to appear as if they are “doing something” in response to the tragedy. It is likely that these initiatives will fail to pass, and I hope they do, but the presumption remains that the only recourse available to society is to pass more laws, as if the thousands and thousands already on the books are insufficient.

The sad truth is, in this situation there were actually dozens of opportunities to intervene, and in nearly every case, the buck was passed, and individuals directly involved with the shooter assumed that someone else, presumably the state, would handle the problem, yet even when the authorities got involved, in typical bureaucratic fashion, they allowed a deranged, deeply disturbed individual to simply fall through the cracks. There are even allegations, which cannot as yet be independently verified, that charges stemming from multiple death threats made by Loughner against Pima Community College staff were swept under the rug as a favor to his aunt, who is a Pima County employee in another department. 10,000 more laws could be passed in the wake of this horrific massacre, but they’ll never amount to anything more than further restriction on our liberty, unless people begin to take personal responsibility for addressing issues like this in their community head on, and seeing it through to the point that people like Jared Lee Loughner ultimately get the mental health services they need, long before they act out violently.

I live and work in Tucson, and I’ve been here for most of my life. One of my co-workers is friends with people who live on the Loughner’s street. I realize this is just hearsay, but from what I understand, this kid had been a major problem in the neighborhood for years, ever since his brain was damaged in an alcohol poisoning incident in 2007, when he was a high school student. Apparently, he would get on his bicycle and ride up and down the block screaming at the top of his lungs at all hours of the night. His parents were quoted in the media, asking “where did we fail?” but it seems clear to me that there was ample basis for neighbors, not to mention friends, school officials and even authorities to take it up with the family, and in fact, they did on several occasions, though with insufficient follow through (typically the very minimum the law required, and nothing more), so they had to know their son was extremely mentally unstable, a danger to himself and others.

It seems to me that a lack of community involvement, the isolation so common to suburban enclaves where families insulate themselves from those around them with distractions like television, video games and the internet, combined with the well ingrained propensity for people to defer to state authority (taught in public school and continually reinforced in the media) to handle any and every discomfiting situation they may encounter, is what made it possible for this family to ignore or discount their son’s increasingly bizarre behavior, as if he were somebody else’s problem. If those of us who advocate private, voluntary alternatives to coercive state authority are going to be successful in changing anything, we’re going to have to get involved in our communities, establishing mutual aide networks and resources for cooperative solutions. If the Loughner family were involved with the people their neighborhood, and they had a sense of responsibility and accountability to their community, as well as an understanding that support and assistance was available to them, they likely would not have been able to persist in their willful ignorance of Jared Lee’s dangerous insanity.

I believe the moral of this tragic story is that no amount of legislation will prevent the next mass-murder spree. Once their mental illness progresses to that point, there is virtually nothing that can deter the criminally insane from carrying out their murderous schemes. But if we engage our neighbors, and interact with others in our community, and take the responsibility to address any issues we have with them directly, and in a timely fashion, rather than assuming it is none of our business or that the authorities will handle it (because most of the time, they wont), we just might have a chance to avert disaster before it happens.

The Tucson Murder Rampage is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

It is a felony to carry a firearm into a courthouse in Minnesota except for “persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate.”

Rosenberg does not deny carrying a gun when he went to a meeting with Sgt. William Palmer at the Minneapolis Police Department (he even recorded himself doing so). Rosenberg says that he notified the sheriff of his intentions to carry when entering the courthouse on several occasions and received permission to do just that. Also, the police department is not a courthouse so even if he had not notified the sheriff he would still not be guilty of violating the law.

When Rosenberg arrived at the meeting Sgt. Palmer immediately disarmed him and told him that he could not carry his gun in the building due to a court order issued by a judge declaring the building a “courthouse” and forbidding private citizens from carrying guns in the building. (Rosenberg was also charged with a misdemeanor contempt of court for violating this court order.)

This is the video of that encounter with Sgt. Palmer (all the action is in the first couple minutes, the rest is boring):

Rosenberg eventually relented and took his gun to his car even though he knew the law was on his side. Minnesota law forbids any government agent including judges from “limiting the exercise of a permit to carry.” A judge cannot just declare a building off limits for carry permit holders. The court order attempting to do so was unlawful.

You can listen to more details about the case here at Armed American Radio. The discussion of Rosenberg’s case starts at about 35 minutes in.

Rosenberg and his supporters contend that Rosenberg was not arrested for exercising his right to carry, but instead they believe that he was arrested for contempt of cop. Shortly after the incident at the police station where Rosenberg was disarmed by Sgt. Palmer he posted the video seen below and this open letter to Sgt. Palmer. In both the video and the letter he mocks Sgt. Palmer and the Minneapolis Police Department. The fact that Rosenberg was not arrested until a month after the incident lends credibility to the contention that his arrest was retaliation for his internet postings. The fact that charges against his wife that had been previously dropped have now been reinstated also lends credibility to the charge of retaliation.

To follow Rosenberg’s story as it unfolds visit Free Joel Rosenberg.

Gun Rights Activist Joel Rosenberg Arrested is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

With each regulation or law against sex work or prostitution, women who do choose to engage in such work become more susceptible to rape, murder and other violence because they are afraid to report crimes. With complete criminalization of sex work and prostitution, sex traffickers and child smugglers are much harder to find and prosecute because the entire industry has been forced underground and lacks transparency. Yet another consequence is the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases, whereas legalized prostitution would encourage regular testing and adherence to safety standards (more here).

Similarly, banning alcohol in the 1920s only led to the rise of organized crime, political corruption and an increase in alcohol-related problems. It was such a colossal failure that the 18th Amendment was repealed. With the failure of each prohibition, the lesson is clear (or at least it should be): bans do not eliminate the substance or behavior, but merely force it underground, remove transparency, increase violence and waste resources squandered in enforcement, while creating tremendous incentives for corruption and abuse of authority.

Guns are no different. The more restrictions, regulations and laws there are hindering gun ownership, the more likely violent people with ill intent will be armed, while good people who fear arrest will not risk doing so. The more gun control the government enacts, the more criminal activity society will face. Although I do not believe liberties should depend upon the interpretation of a document, the United States Constitution and its history are instructive here. The Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This declaration, although short, could be seen as a legal scholar’s nightmare. What does “well-regulated” mean? What constitutes a “militia”? Is the second clause, “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” an absolute, or does that right depend on the necessity of a well-regulated militia? These considerations are precisely why I dislike the idea of having civil liberties depend on governmental interpretation of a document purporting to restrict the very government doing the interpreting.

Even so, several of the founding fathers saw an armed populace as a deterrent against government tyranny. Noah Webster pointed out that

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason said of England’s efforts to disarm the people “that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”  Indeed, the Revolutionary War itself is evidence the founding fathers supported people taking up arms against tyrannical government.

As much as I dislike guns, this makes perfect sense. How can a government control or oppress a fully-armed populace? For the people who like to deviate from the text and argue the Constitution should be interpreted based on changes in society and more current considerations, I’d like to know – at what point in American history did the US government transform from the potential source of tyranny the founders feared into a perfect government incapable of abuse and oppression? Are today’s politicians suddenly so much more intelligent and enlightened that we need not have any fear of government control and abuse? If so, when precisely did this miraculous change occur?

While the founding fathers believed an armed populace was essential to liberty, the current sentiment is that people who choose to bear arms are a threat to everyone. The law, and people’s general attitudes, do not reflect the idea that an individual has a right to protect him or herself and preserve freedom; the general attitude is that a person must justify his or her desire to own or carry a firearm.

Arguably, the founding fathers could never have contemplated that despite the Second Amendment, an American could one day be arrested and have his gun taken away merely because he disrespected police. John Solomon, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon, refused to disperse from a bus station when police asked him to. “If he’s that defiant, should this guy have a gun?” said Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesman. “The most uncommon human trait is common sense. He’s not using good, adult judgment.” For being defiant, he was arrested and had his gun confiscated (more here).

Indeed, in this scenario the police were the ones who lacked common sense by preventing someone from waiting at a bus stop and arresting a person for acting “defiant.” If common sense is to be the gauge as to whether someone can have a gun, these officers should not be entitled to own one, much less carry one. But, of course, the right of police to carry and use guns is never questioned.

In New York City, restrictions on gun ownership may be increasing. Proposed revisions to the licensing scheme will deny licenses to people who have been arrested or convicted of almost any violation in any state, including the grave offense of demonstrating a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; allegedly lacking “good moral character”; or if there is any “other good cause for the denial of the permit” (more here).

Yet police who shoot people under questionable circumstances not only continue to have guns, they continue to serve as police officers and sometimes even go on to shoot more innocent people. One Officer Bryan Yant shot and killed Trevon Cole for making a “furtive movement” after a drug bust that involved lies by police and mistaken identity. It was Yant’s third shooting.

Officers Lilly and Coutts of Phoenix shot an innocent homeowner. Tony Arambula’s wife reported a burglar invasion and specifically informed police upon their arrival that her husband was inside the house, and had cornered the intruder. Lilly and Coutts not only shot Mr. Arambula 6 times, including in the back, but dragged him outside by his leg and transported him on the hood of their car after discovering their mistake. Aside from the standard 3-day suspension for investigative purposes, neither officers were disciplined (full story here).

Several years ago, Officers Willard and Bergin of Sandy, Oregon came upon a mentally unstable man, who was suffering from burns he received in a car crash.  They tasered him multiple times and shot him seven times until he died because he would not lie down on the ground (more here). Both Willard and Bergin continued to work as police officers, although Bergin later resigned for unrelated reasons.

This is likely the exact scenario the founding fathers feared. The government is well-armed, with no questions asked. The government finds all kinds of reasons (bad driving, bad employment record, etc.) to stop ordinary people from owning a gun before they can even use it, but police are allowed to have guns, commit atrocities with their guns, and continue to serve as police officers.

Not only is the government well-armed, it has enacted special laws for itself so that people who choose to fight back against corrupt police officers or other government agents abusing their authority face extremely harsh punishment. Assault, battery or homicide on a police officer or other armed agent of the state carries much heavier penalties in many states, which suggests those in government believe their lives are worth more than those of the people they ostensibly serve. People who defend themselves against unwarranted police violence thus risk being prosecuted not only for assault or homicide, but the much graver offense of committing these acts against an agent of the state. For instance, Cory Maye defended himself and his infant daughter against a wrongful home invasion committed in the middle of the night by an anti-drug SWAT team, whom he reasonably believed to be armed robbers, and was given the death penalty after he fired his gun and fatally struck the deputy who kicked in his bedroom door.

The laws are such that people are disincentivized from defending themselves, and police are encouraged to kill people. History further paints those who defend themselves as “violent,” while police who kill people merely are guilty of “accidents.” Years of public school education have taught us the Black Panthers were a terrible, racist and violent group. Yet a brief read on Wikipedia paints a very different picture. They may be rightfully criticized for being communists, but their organization was founded on the principle of self-defense against racist police. The whole reason the Black Panthers came into existence was to retaliate and engage in self-defense against abusive police. The Panthers openly carried guns to protest and protect themselves from the police who had so often wrongly turned their guns against them. Certainly, there are other dark moments and problems in Black Panther history warranting criticism, but ultimately, history unfairly paints them as violent and militant merely for advocating self-defense.

Malcolm X presents yet another example of historical distortion. After viewing many Malcolm X speeches on YouTube, I have yet to find a single speech in which he actually advocated the initiation of violence. His speech, The Ballot or the Bullet, often criticized for having violent themes, merely said this of bearing arms:

The only thing that I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.

He then goes on to say, “If he’s not going to do his job in running the government and providing you and me with the protection that our taxes are supposed to be for, since he spends all those billions for his defense budget, he certainly can’t begrudge you and me spending $12 or $15 for a single-shot, or double-action.”

I may disagree with Malcolm X’s characterizations of the “White Man” or “the Chinaman” or his proposed solutions to government corruption in this speech, but his underlying message is ultimately the right of self-defense. To characterize self-defense as militancy is absurd; yet this is exactly what the government, historians and many textbooks have done.

The distortion of history further contributes to this phenomenon by juxtaposing the successes of peaceful protesters who effected change in laws with the alleged militancy of people who dared to engage in self-defense. While civil disobedience is commendable, and arguably much more effective than violence, a person has a moral right to shoot back at police who are wrongfully shooting at him or her.  When you see the KKK/police (often indistinguishable back in those days) lynching your family member, you certainly can hold a peaceful protest, and hope the local police would arrest their own, the courts would try their own, and that an all-white jury would vote to convict the killer, who finally goes to jail. But in my opinion, you would absolutely be within your moral rights to load your shotgun and just kill the attacker.

Aside from moral considerations, practicality dictates that when one is facing an immediate attack, police often cannot and will not be there in a timely fashion. Experience further indicates that not only may police be too late, they may show up and cause more harm than good, as was the case with Mr. and Mrs. Arambula, and the case in which an Officer Chrisman shot a young man and his dog, for essentially being non-compliant (full story here). The idea that police must be armed but citizens must be restricted rests on the assumption that police are better people, never make mistakes and are never corrupt. This simply is not the case. Police cannot stop a rape or a murder if they are 15 minutes away.  Further, there absolutely are situations in which citizens need to, and have a right to defend themselves against police with deadly force.

Over and over, official history and the government depict self-defense against government as unwarranted violence and governmental initiation of violence against people as minor indiscretions. The government uses violence against its populace on a daily basis, but expects those citizens to refrain from self-defense, and instead lobby, organize, take beatings, get arrested, and essentially beg for changes in the system.

If this continues, the people’s right of defense against government tyranny will eventually be completely erased and a police state firmly established.

History re-writes self-defense against government as militancy, violence and lunacy is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Erik Scott

On July 10, Erik Scott, a West Point and Duke graduate, went shopping at Costco in Summerlin, Nevada.  He was carrying a concealed firearm, as permitted by Nevada state law.  Witness and officer reports differ on what happened next.  Allegedly, Scott began acting bizarrely, and would not leave the store.  Some accounts indicate Xanax and pain killers were in his system after subsequent testing.

It is not disputed that police were called to Costco, and upon seeing Scott, demanded that he drop his weapon (this was recorded on the 911 call, as well as confirmed by a witness).  As Mr. Scott reached for his holstered gun (which never left the holster) to drop his weapon, police shot him 2 times in the chest, 5 times in the back, killing him (more here).

The officers involved in the shooting were subsequently found to be “justified,” and of course were not charged with anything.  No doubt this case raises many issues; the first one is that of the right to concealed carry.  If you can be shot for “acting bizarrely” while posing no threat to anyone, then effectively, there really is no right to concealed carry.  The right does not in fact exist if you have the “right to carry” but can be shot arbitrarily.

Of course, there are always the typical apologists who justify police violence with the fact that the victim was non-compliant and thus deserved to be forced into submission. One would think these apologists have nothing to say here; Mr. Scott was shot precisely because he was obeying commands to “drop the firearm.” How can one drop a firearm without touching it?  A lot of police justifications center around the fact that several witnesses saw Mr. Scott reaching for a weapon.  There is no doubt the 911 recording reflects officer commands for Scott to drop the weapon; in essence, he was shot precisely for obeying police commands.  But what are facts to zombie-like police apologists, rushing rabidly to defend tyrants?  Lynn S (who is either totally uninformed or an idiot) had this to say in response to a news article on the matter:

If only Mr. Scott would of obeyed the policemans commands this would not be a issue. I hold a ccw card and that is the 1st thing they teach you OBEY a cop if confronted.Maybe a few too many pain pills ??? Sorry to the family , but quit trying to place the blame on the police and take a good look at your son.            –Lynn S

Victim-blaming. Tell the dead guy with 7 bulletholes and a heartbroken family and fiancee that it’s their fault.  Classic.  And classy, I might add (sarcasm). I used to think people were nuts for demanding blind obedience to cops.  Now I see it’s not just blind obedience to cops; it’s just a very general, obsequious love -fest for cops.  This unfounded deference borders on the obscene; even when you do obey them, when they shoot you it’s still your fault, not theirs.

The story continues to get sketchier from there.  Costco, a major wholesaler operating on the international scale, claims its surveillance camera was broken for days leading up to this incident. As such, no footage was available.

Shai Lierley, a Costco security guard now alleges he knew at the time the video was not working, and had arranged for repairs. Yet, initial news articles did not mention any alleged malfunction. It seems strange for Costco to turn (blank) security tapes over to police without mentioning any malfunction if they knew the camera was broken. This article indicates Costco and police refused to comment on the video initially.  It is again odd Costco wouldn’t just say such footage didn’t exist if they were aware the surveillance system was broken.

Further, it appears police sent the hard drive to a forensic analyst, allegedly to recover footage. Since when can you recover footage that doesn’t exist? If you knew your camera was broken and failed to record something, it doesn’t make sense to send it to a forensic analyst for retrieval.  You can’t retrieve something that never existed in the first place.

Admittedly, this is all speculative. However, even assuming there was no foul play with the convenient lack of surveillance, it is unquestionably ridiculous that a man can be shot for reaching for his gun when armed officers specifically commanded him to drop his gun.

When the story first broke in July, witness accounts differed from the police accounts. With a few minor discrepancies, 4 witnesses interviewed immediately afterward did not know why Scott was shot.  None of them saw Scott brandish a weapon.  One witness said, “There wasn’t even time for someone to react…The guy didn’t pull a gun. There was no gun in his hand, there was no gun on the ground.” Another witness similarly did not see Mr. Scott threaten anyone.  A July 28 update indicated there were floods of witnesses calling the station offering to give accounts.

Another eyewitness referenced in this article who was right next to Scott claims he didn’t have a gun in his hand or appear to be hostile in any way. The witness further said that once Scott was down and clearly not a threat, police treated his lifeless body “like a sack of potatoes.”

Metro Police Officer William Mosher testifying at the coroner's inquest

More recently, witnesses at the coroner’s inquest have largely backed police accounts of Scott brandishing a weapon, holding a gun, reaching for a gun, or something to that effect. In the eyes of the jury involved in the coroner’s inquest, this appears to have justified the murder.  It is unclear why this is the case. Even assuming the witnesses claiming Scott made no threatening move were all lying, witnesses supporting the police’s account of events actually make this murder even more ridiculous.  If Scott was reaching for a weapon, he was doing so under police orders.

The level of incompetence required for a team of allegedly trained police to scream for a suspect to drop his weapon, but then to shoot him when he attempts to do so is almost incomprehensible.

Well, police have succeeded at their job.  No one was made safer.  A man is dead because of their incompetence and shameless use of violence, but their approval ratings are doing just fine.

Erik Scott’s death: what happens in the LVMPD, stays in the LVMPD is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Monday Link Roundup is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The Philadelphia Daily News interviews nine men the city’s police department has arrested for carrying guns, even though all nine were carrying legally.

Eight of the men said that they were detained by police – two for 18 hours each. Two were hospitalized for diabetic issues while in custody, one of whom was handcuffed to a bed. Charges were filed against three of the men, only to be withdrawn by the District Attorney’s Office.

The civil-rights unit of the City Solicitor’s Office confirmed that it is handling eight such cases. Two of the men interviewed by the Daily News said that they rejected settlement offers from the city ranging from $3,500 to $7,500. One accepted a $5,000 offer.

Most of the cases hinge on what local authorities call the “Florida loophole,” under which a Pennsylvania resident can obtain a nonresident permit to carry a concealed weapon through the mail from another state, even without a permit in Pennsylvania.

The “loophole” is unpopular with Philadelphia cops, who say that it allows those denied a permit here or whose permits were revoked to circumvent Philadelphia authorities and obtain it elsewhere.

But proponents say that it’s necessary because Philadelphia has unusually strict criteria for obtaining a concealed-carry permit. Philadelphia, according to police and gun owners, relies heavily on a clause that allows denial of a permit based on “character and reputation” alone.

Agree or disagree with the law, it is the law, which the police are sworn to uphold. Some police officers in Philadelphia apparently feel they can simply ignore it. The department brass doesn’t seem particularly concerned.

Despite following the law, all of the men said that they were treated like criminals by city cops who either ignored their rights or didn’t know the laws.

Lt. Fran Healy, special adviser to the police commissioner, acknowledged that some city cops apparently are unfamiliar with some concealed-carry permits. But he said that it’s better for cops to “err on the side of caution.”

“Officers’ safety comes first, and not infringing on people’s rights comes second,” Healy said.

It doesn’t get more succint than that.

Cop: “Officers’ safety comes first, and not infringing on people’s rights comes second” is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Man arrested for defending his home from a dangerous gang is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

GreenfieldPD is block quoted where Brad J is not.

“Ok, Looks like I may have upset some people. Sorry it took so long to respond but I was on vacation with the family for the 4th.”

Thank you for being willing to continue the dialog here.

“Absolutely, police are held accountable. I know I can not do a lot of the same stuff you are allowed to do. If I were to get caught doing many of the things many people do I would be repremanded at work.”

This statement is a bunch of bull. A detective I used to work with got into a fight down on Hampton Beach in Hampton, NH…. and my former Lieutenant covered it up. The detective bragged about it. The assault was witnessed by a former CI that the detective burned (went around and told everyone he was a snitch) and the CI reported it to the cops. The cops contacted my former department to investigate. Poof…. nothing happened.

“What would you suggets someone do if they catch someone breaking into their house?”

Use whatever force they deem appropriate to protect themselves and their property… and call their private protection agency to take the person into custody for violating their property rights.

“A jail is not a public space. It is a secure facility that allows you to go there to bail your friends out. Even if its not a law, it may just be a facility rule. One that due to security breaches, must be followed. How would you feel if your tape gave someone the insight into how they could breach security and someone broke out and harmed someone. Would that be your responsibility?”

Your argument here is irrelevant. NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say that rights can be attenuated. The 1st Amendment says that NO law shall be made to interfere with the freedom of the press. Adam and Pete are members of the press, specifically CopBlock.org. (The 14th Amendment incorporates the 1st Amendment to the states, by the way.)

If a law enforcement officer was really going to honor their oath, they would have to respect that people have the freedom to do what Adam and Pete did. Since we both know that most cops don’t even know (or give a flying fuck about) what the Constitution says, rights are violated every day.

“Basically the police messed up with the RV. No they do not have the right. People are humans, they make mistakes. Although they should be held accountable for their mistakes just like anyone, they do make mistakes. Not that the rv thing was a mistake. It was your a pain in my ass so I am going to be one in yours. Would I have handled it that way? No! but I understand why they did.”

This statement makes me believe you are NOT a Greenfield police officer. There is no way an active member of that force would make a statement here on a public forum where we all know the Greenfield PD is reading.

If Adam and Pete file a civil suit, which I hope they do, finding out who you are would be fairly easy with subpoenas. Your statement that the police were acting illegally/improperly would shoot their claim of “Qualified Immunity” right out of the water. I disbelieve you are who you say you are.

“I think I do my job very well. I am also very understanding. But when I am trying to do my job and someone starts demanding I give them their rights, it just gets annoying. I know your rights, I am not beating you, I am not torturing you, Im doing my job and I am proud to do it.”

You obviously DO NOT know what individuals’ rights are as you have proven yourself to not understand the very 1st Amendment of the document you allege you are sworn to defend. Your alleged oath is to uphold the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions…. and the federal one says that NO LAW can be passed which infringes on the right of the press.

“Im doing my job and I am proud to do it. I love it when someone is having a problem and I can help them. It makes me feel goot that I was able to help someone.”

The police do FAR MORE to hurt people than to help. If you claim otherwise, you’re full of bull. I was a cop for eleven years.

“I get to say, I feel good because I was able to help that person or take that druggie off the street so he does not break into anyone elses house to steal to buy more drugs.”

Your logic is tragically flawed. If you REALLY wanted to make communities safer you would support ending the “War on Drugs.” Do you? The “War on Drugs” is precisely why “druggies” are breaking into people’s homes to steal to buy more drugs… they are not doing it because they are high on drugs, they’re doing it because they are addicted to a prohibited product.

You are making the community far less safe if you support and enforce the “War on Drugs.” Again, another reason why I had to quit my former job.

“You are free to put whatever you want into your body. Weed, coke, heroin, model glue, i could care less. “

No, people are not… and you are full of crap. How many people have you arrested for possessing these innocuous plants and substances? How many people will you continue to arrest for it?

Unless you declare right now unequivocally that you will never again arrest someone for possession of an “illegal” drug, you are full of crap.

“But when you drive, sell it to my kids or their friends, break in to someones house to get more, Ill be waiting.”

Driving dangerously and endangering/harming someone because of impairment on drugs is a real crime with a real victim. So is breaking into someone’s house to get money to buy more.

Selling drugs to someone is a victimless crime… and since you’ll be “waiting” – you clearly DO care about what someone puts in their body, as you’re willing to put someone in a cage for providing said substances to the person who wants them.

“As for use of force, if its me or you, getting hurt, it wont be me. Im going home so I can help another day.”

You are willing to use deadly force to enforce the most victimless laws… this you need to understand. Every single law, no matter how victimless or silly, is backed up by the fact that the government will kill you if you do not comply with it. Another reason why I had to quit my job.

“That is the principle that this country was founded on, not being able to carry a fuc*in gun.”

You’re once again proving you have no understanding of the Constitution or history. This country was INDEED founded on the principle of carrying a “fuc*in” gun. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with target practice or hunting. It was put in place by the Founding Fathers so that a tyrannical government could not enact tyranny on the people.

Being from Massachusetts I completely expect you to be indoctrinated to think otherwise… so I am not surprised. Whenever you enforce (again, I question whether or not you actually are a law enforcement officer) one of Massachusetts draconian gun laws… you are violating your oath to the United States Constitution. Why should you care though, right? You get paid.

“I completely disagree with the armed society being a safe society. Think of how many senseless killings there would be if more people had guns. People over react to a lot. Many would get shot out of fear of being shot. It would be crazy. Completely unrealistic. I have come across many people that have no business having a gun.”

Most of the people who have “no business having a gun” are the people who work in government. The amount of people who DO NOT work in government who absolutely would never use a firearm in an aggressive manner are completely dwarfed in comparison by the amount of people who work for the government who would use their guns (and do…) to hurt people.

YOU are the violent one here, not Adam and Pete. YOU are the one who is willing to use your firearm to ensure compliance with various words on paper that ban completely harmless activities. Adam and Pete are non-violent people… who would never do that to you. You need to look in the mirror and lose the cognitive dissidence.

You really need to watch the movie Equilibrium.

“No not all cops are trust worthy. Not all bankers and scientists and firemen and priests and teachers and prostitutes are trustworthy either. I do not get your point.”

You wouldn’t get it, would you?

Here it is: Bankers, scientists, and firemen are NOT AUTHORIZED AND WILLING TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST PEACEFUL PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME WORDS ON PAPER SAY IT IS OKAY. IF A BANKER, SCIENTIST, OR FIREMAN USED VIOLENCE AGAINST A PEACEFUL PERSON… SAID PEACEFUL PERSON COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES. YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER– THEY ARE “AUTHORIZED” TO USE ANY LEVEL OF VIOLENCE TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE.

Words on paper said it was okay at one time to use violence against a black person who was drinking out of a white water fountain… was THAT okay?

“You have no idea what my mindset is. Please do not be bumb enough to try and guess either. I am a very patient tolerant man.”

No, you’re not. If you really ARE a law enforcement officer, you are a person who believes that initiating violence to solve a non-violent problem is a virtiuous act. Your mindset is that it is okay to use violence against peaceful people… so long as a bunch of people write down words on paper that say it is okay.

I had the same mindset as you once. Once decent non-violent people like Adam and Pete showed me that I was a violent thug, I had no choice but to quit my job. You are a violent thug who, like me at one time, doesn’t realize it.

“If you get in my face telling me you have the right to do this and that and you are bothering others and disturbing their peace and quiet, I will ask you politely to stop. Probably a few times. Then you will get locked up for it.”

Locking someone up for asserting and exercising their Constitutional rights is a blantant violation of your (alleged) oath to defend the Constitution. You clearly don’t give a flip about that, though.

Everyone should know the oath to defend said document is a load of crap anyways. It is a feel-good PR trick, just like the “Law Enforcement Officer’s Code of Ethics.” Care to debate me on that one?

“No big deal. I will sleep fine knowing that the family taking a walk that specific day can do so without listening to your rants.”

Of course you would sleep fine. I used to sleep fine after using violence against peaceful people to lock them up for doing completely harmless acts. Then I realized how much of a violent thug I really was. Now I’m unemployed.

You may be making money… but I’m not hurting people.

“I hope I get the chance to pull you over some day and give you a pass on a ticket, or get to come to your house for an emergency and change your mind without you knowing who I am or me knowing who you are.”

Showing decency does not relieve you of your responsibility for your other aggressive actions.

Simply putting on a costume with a piece of metal on it does not mean you are no longer an individual human being with moral responsibilities to your fellow man.

“As for why I will not tell you who I am. You have not earned my respect enough. I am a private person and like to keep it that way. I do my jib and go home to my family knowing I made a difference.”

I’m sure police who arrested black people for drinking out of white water fountains, or the Nazis, or the US Marshals who enforced the Fugitive Slave Act went home thinking they made a difference…. when in reality all they were doing was using violence to hurt people.

“I have never stolen, beat, or wrongly went after someone.”

Every time you get paid you are stealing from people… with the threat of violence.

“I wear my uniform with pride.”

Your uniform does not make your violence against peaceful people a virtuous act. It makes it worse… as it uses public perception to justify actions that are absolutely immoral.

“Just because you disagree does not mean im wrong.”

Just because words are written down on paper authorizing you to be violent to peaceful people does NOT make YOU right. Or moral. Or a good person.

I deeply regret all the people I hurt… simply because words on paper and a majority of people thought it was okay. Might does NOT make right.

“It means you are in the United States and have that freedom. Try your antics just about anywhere else and see what happens. You will gladly come back here and say sorry and maybe a little thank you would be nice.”

Ah yes… The tyranny is less here, so kiss the ground and thank god for what you have.

There is no freedom in the United States. It is sad that you think there is.

“Again, keep up the good work, no one hates a dirty cop more than I do. DO it the right way and I will stand with you.”

You are a dirty cop, you know. There is no such thing as a “clean cop” when *all* cops initiate violence against peaceful people simply because words on paper say it is okay. Might does NOT make right.

I know my response to your response has been harsh… but I hope you will take it to heart. Think for yourself about what it is that you do. If you truly are a good person, a non-violent person, you’ll have no chance but to quit.

There are lots of police officers who are good people who simply do not understand that what they are doing is immoral. I didn’t. I learned… and I corrected my life. It has not been easy, but my soul feels much better.

GreenfieldPD and Brad Jardis Face Off in Comments Section is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

*I’ll refer to and assume this person is a Greenfield Police Officer because of the following statement below by him/her, “When he just went on his rant about armour piercing bullets and re-enforced doors, he made him self out to be a nut and not a person looking for what is true and just.”  Though this isn’t exactly what was stated–we talked about protection–it’s a comment that only a person who helped kidnap us could make.*

You people kill me. If we did not have laws we would have anarchy. I know I do not want my kids growing up in a land with no laws and no accountability. If we did not have “man made” laws, what would we do to the people who hurt our children and steal our property. Who would make the decision as to what to do then?

Yes, without “‘man made’ laws” there would be anarchy, but anarchy is not chaos–it is order.  It’s the acceptance of the non-aggression principle, the idea that people should be free to live their lives so long as they don’t initiate force against others – something many police do on a daily bases.  Every time you arrest a person for a victimless crime (remember, victims are individuals, not states or governments) you’re using force, or the threat of, to steal money from them.  You do this under the color of law which, to you, makes it right.

I’m also not saying that you can’t raise your kids in a society that has ‘man made’ laws, regulations and force.  I’m just asking for you to let me live in my voluntary society which is absent of things of that nature.  Will you allow my family to live as we wish, without sending people with guns to steal from us?

We need laws and we need people that are accountable. The best ways to fight these ‘Laws” is to get out there and get you message out. Let people know you are trying to do the right thing. Don’t just look like a crack pot by “questioning the man”. You sound like fools. Let people hear you. Post messages, hand out fliers, have rallies and try not to sound nuts. You might get people on your side. Then you vote people out of of office. That is the only way to get something done.

We don’t need man-made legislation, we need accountability, something government shields itself and its agents (like police) from.  You can’t honestly say that police are held accountable to the same extent of those without badges. If I broke into someone’s home I’d be put in a cage.  If I pulled someone over for a victimless crime, I’d be accused of kidnapping or something. But again you claim to have this authority over others.

No a monopoly is not the best way. Are you comparing the police to a monopoly? How do you suggest that americans live safe and productive lives without these “man made” laws. Who would punish those who have done wrong to us?

The police claim a legitimate monopoly on force.  Like I stated before, and to Todd M. Dodge, if I broke into your home – like your buddies did to me – I would be locked in a cage.  Even Dodge stated he’d “Fucking kill me” if I broke into his home–which isn’t a bad answer considering protection is your responsibility, not the polices’.  This is something I’ll touch again on later, as there is a comment about guns coming up.

Rosa parks was a brave and dignified woman. She stood up for what was wrong and did it in a peaceful manner. She never got in anyones face and compromised their safety. Nor did the cops beat her. What happened was wrong and sense then we have grown. Not to our full potential, but progress has been made.

EXACTLY!  Rosa wanted to sit in the front of the bus because she was too tired from work to walk to the back.  She didn’t want to be a hero.  She just wanted to SIT, a peaceful action that wasn’t violating anyone.  But at that time people felt she should be in her place and not at the front.  Well, how is video tapping any different?  You’re statement suggest that Rosa was in the right because she was peaceful. Was I not peaceful?

Knowing yourself [talking to Brad J a former cop and CopBlock.org contributor] how a secure facility works, you should know better than to try and film in a jail. You know it is against the rules. They knew the consequences, and they are paying the price. If everyone just went around doing what they wanted this place would be nuts. You can not have a civilized society when people can not be held accountable.

Is it against the LAW to film in a jail??  How come no one could show me the law/rule that stated no filming in jails/public spaces?  How am I to know the consequences if the person who’s responsible for enforcing them can’t even tell me the law in the first place?  Should you be allowed to enforce laws you can’t clearly explain?  How come trespassing was the word used while at the jail?  Is that because there is no law about filming in public spaces?

If the RV was in a legal spot, it should not have been towed. If it was not they have to inventory any important items. Otherwise people would say the cops are stealing from them. *eople on here have even said they are looking for theings to sue them for. But I think that was mostly you being a pain in their ass and they were repaying you.

So police have the right to deliver justice immediately?  That’s what I get out of this statement, “I think that was mostly you being a pain in their ass and they were repaying you.”  Is that the job of police?  Is the RV in the picture parked illegally?  The cops did steal from me: they took my camera, cell phone, necklace and time.

You can not expect to annoy the sh*t out of someone and not have them do it back. They are cops but thay are also human. If anyone got in my face like that and kept trying to push buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons, I would give them exactly what they wanted.

You shouldn’t be a cop then.  You obviously can’t control your anger and feel that force is the only way to get people to comply.  I feel bad for you. I hope at some time in your life you find a way to resolve issues in a different manner.  Unless your life or life of a loved on is being threatened, the use of force should only be in defense.

The main thing here is that most of the cops I have met and worked with want to make the place they live a better place to live. That mens taking the bad guys off the streets. I very rarely see them bothering people who do not harm anyone. They go after people who victimize society.

Work hard to make the place they live better?  By following laws and orders that harass and victimize peaceful people?  Is that the job of police?  Have you ever thought of what would happen if you privatized protection?

They get the dealers, the bullys, the wife beaters, the child abusers. I cant tell you how many times I have seen a small stash just get thrown away.

What happens when the cops are the bullies, wife beaters and abusers (not just of children)?  Why did you or other police get rid of the small stash?  Is it because that person wasn’t harming anyone or is it because people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies?  If those are the reasons then why wouldn’t your officers and jailers allow us to film and leave under the same pretense?  Why did they decide to use force?  Because we said no?

I know you guys are trying to do some positive things. Your just doing it in a real negative way.

I think the same thing about police and you.  Instead of using reason and logic you decide to use force to get people to comply.

It sounds to me like you were the kid that poked the bees nest with a stick and then got upset with the bees when you got stung. EVERYONE has a boiling point. Cop, judge, nurse, rabbi, priest, you name it. They are PEOPLE.

I think you have this backwards.  We’re the bees, the ones who will go about our business in a peaceful manner.  Then police are men who will show up and poke our nest.  At which time we’ll stick up for our rights and defend ourselves as well as our property.

Police should not be allowed to infringe upon peoples rights. No doubt about it. When it comes to safety and police being around other people with guns, it makes us a little uneasy. All I am saying is that if try and try and try to get a cop to do something bad, your going to get it sooner or later. You absolutely do not have the right to infringe upon anyones right to peace and quiet.

An armed society is a safe society, everyone has the right to protect themselves.  It’s the initiation of force that’s wrong.  The fact that cops dislike and harass people who carry firearms is a direct reflection of their need for control and compliance.  I feel unsafe and more than ‘a little uneasy’ when around men in uniforms and guns.  I don’t believe peace and quiet is a right, it’s a luxury.  I have the right to protect myself, the right to put what I want in my body and the right to spend my money as I choose so long as I don’t initiate force against the equal negative rights of another.  But peace and quiet aren’t a right… those are things people seek.

Do you think that the gang shitheads have the right to walk around with guns if they have not been convicted yet? Not a safe istuation. A normal every day person does not walk around with a gun in a civilized society. Who do you turn to when some has done something to you or your family? Just curious.

This statement was priceless, “A normal every day person does not walk around with a gun in a civilized society.”  Isn’t this what cops do every day: walk (or drive cars, bikes, ect) around with guns on their hips?  Oh, I bet you think all cops are trustworthy and would never use it unless they really had to.  And that cops are the only ones capable of being taught such responsibility. What a joke.

I don’t think anyone has the right to restrict anyone from protecting themselves.  Why should I not have the right to defend myself because some people believe my actions – which again, harmed no one – strip me of my right? “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.”  Think about that.  Taking guns from felons, such as myself, not only make me less safe, but everyone else (including cops) as I’m the type of person who would come to the aid of someone in need.  I know several ‘normal every day’ people who carry firearms.  They take it just as, if not more, seriously than those with badges because, unlike police, they know if they use their weapons, they will be held accountable.

And if you really want to know how a cop feels, “GreenfieldPD” lays it out in his next comment:

Even when police are held to a higher standard they should not have to deal with someone in their face all of the time rambling on and on about their rights. If someone infringes upon your rights, there is a course of action to be taken. When he just went on his rant about armour piercing bullets and re-enforced doors, he made him self out to be a nut and not a person looking for what is true and just. Do it the right way and I will stand with you. Act like a fool and you’re on your own.

Again, look at the mindset of a police officer today, “Even when police are held to a higher standard they should not have to deal with someone in their face all of the time rambling on and on about their rights.”  Yeah why should anyone have to hear about those silly rights, except the right to peace and quiet which seems to have a huge value to those with badges so much that they’ll steal, abuse and punish at will whoever they please to get it.

What’s foolish to me is that you won’t even give us your name, badge number and rank.  Are you that ashamed of your job that when you comment in defense of it you hide?  Are you afraid others might see you and your buddies for what they are?

Response to Comments Left by GreenfieldPD on CopBlock.org is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights