Cop Block is Committed to the Non-Aggression Principle

Dear Readers,

We at Cop Block would like to address the article  written and shared to Cop Block’s Facebook page by former author, Christopher Cantwell, entitled Dead Men Don’t Start Revolutionsas it was reasonably and understandably concerning to many of you and many of us.

As you know, Cop Block is entirely run by, and composed of, various dedicated and passionate volunteers. Our practice is to encourage almost all forms of discourse, as we believe there to be merit in the free exchange of ideas. We welcome discussions of all types, and are always thrilled when people volunteer to take on more responsibilities in the organization. However, we seek to maintain an underlying commitment to the non-aggression principle. In our view, Mr. Cantwell’s inflammatory call for violence and thinly-veiled implication that all cops, regardless of individual actions, should be subject to death, encourages a violation of the non-aggression principle.

We, the undersigned, would like to make known that we as individuals do not endorse Cantwell’s writings and as writers and team members of Cop Block, we affirm the Non-Aggression Principle and do not wish violence on anyone.  We aren’t about promoting violence; we’re about educating, revealing the reality of the police state, and spreading the idea that Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights.


  • Pete Eyre, Co-founder
  • Nathan Cox, Virginia Cop Block
  • R0thbard, Tech team, LWA
  • Georgia Sand, Editor/Writer
  • Janel Florez, Co-Founder of MO/KS Cop Block
  • DEO Odolecki, Greater Cleveland Cop Block, Ohio Cop Block
  • (Edit:Toni bones has requested her name be removed to avoid any confusion. “I requested my name be removed to avoid any confusion. admittedly I should have gone over this better before attaching my name to it. while I agree that Christopher’s post was against CopBlock guidelines and that I certainly do not advocate slaughtering anyone in public at your own discretion whether they have stolen others or not and find such notions extremely counterproductive to achieving a peaceful transition out of oppression. I do however advocate self defense and absolutely support his right to express himself. I do think that he violated CopBlock guidelines but I do not I think that he violated the non aggression principle and I would not wish to give the impression that I did not believe wholeheartedly that controversial speech is the very most important to protect, whether we agree with it or not. peace love and liberty”)

For a good breakdown of our reasoning, please see the following.


The idea that people do not have the right to initiate violence upon others is one that can be subject to a multitude of different interpretations. For our purposes here at Cop Block, it looks something like this:

First, let’s define “self-defense” and “justified force/violence.”

As a general matter, self-defense (or defense of another) is the use of reasonable force to repel, prevent, or protect the self, or another from imminent attack or danger. Another type of justified force would be use of violence/force for purposes of rectifying/compensating the effects of initiatory violence. Examples of this would be using appropriate/proportional force to retrieve stolen property, or seek restitution for a victim of initiatory violence, among others.

Contrary to what Mr. Cantwell’s article claims, it is not impossible to murder an aggressor, or aggress upon an aggressor; this is patently incorrect. Consider, for example, the following: Aggressor 1 punches Victim in the head, and runs off. The next day, Aggressor 2, a stranger to both Aggressor 1 and Victim, randomly ambushes Aggressor 1 and kills him. As Agressor 2’s actions are neither 1) reasonable force to prevent an attack, nor 2) use of violence/force for purposes of rectifying/compensating initiatory violence against himself, this would constitute murder. It is still initiation of aggression, even though Aggressor 1 also was an initiator of aggression upon someone else, in a separate circumstance.

This analysis does not change if the actors are police officers. Here at Cop Block, we stress that police are human like everyone else; they are not gods as most Americans are led to believe thanks to decades of indoctrination via government schools and corporate media, and ought to be subject to the same rules, responsibilities, and consequences as ordinary individuals. Badges don’t grant extra rights, but neither do they strip people of basic rights.

We have a fundamental difference in understanding of what is accurately described as self-defense or appropriate (non-initiatory) violence in the context of Mr. Cantwell’s article. In our view, self-defense (or defense of another) constitutes using deadly force upon the police only if they were initiating deadly force on a victim at the moment. Justified violence might be (and some may disagree) among the following:

  • Using a reasonable amount of violence to obtain the money those particular cops stole from a specific victim(s)
  • Using  a reasonable amount of violence to obtain compensation for a specific victim(s) injured by those specific officers
  • At the very worst, if there was evidence those particular officers murdered someone, some advocates of the non-aggression principle might find (and many would disagree) that it is acceptable for a family member or private defense agency to exact some kind of forceful punishment.

These are the principles we believe to be applicable to all human beings, police officers included. With reference to the Las Vegas killings, in the absence of any evidence that those cops murdered anyone, killing them while they were eating lunch fits neither within the definition of self-defense, defense of another, or justified violence. It is thus murder.  If Mr. Cantwell’s premise is to be accepted, then it follows that it is morally correct for random people (non-victims) to murder any criminal who has initiated violence, no matter how petty the offense. This is simply absurd.

Mr. Cantwell’s claim that anyone is entitled to kill cops at any time, because cops are constantly initiating aggression, is merely an ugly form of collectivism. This claim is essentially that because some cops commit murder, and many of them steal, all cops deserve to be ambushed and randomly executed, regardless of individual actions. This is no different from gang enhancement penalties, wherein people are punished excessively for crimes that otherwise should bear lesser penalties, on the sole basis that they are member of a gang. This is no different from saying that violence is acceptable if enforced for the “greater good.” If  the non-aggression principle does not allow for street-style execution of people who have committed theft, it certainly doesn’t allow for street-style execution of cops who have been proven guilty of nothing.

It is also worthwhile to note there are different levels of aggression. Yes, there are cops that have committed murder, rape, and/or abuse. There are plenty that have not nearly committed anything rising to those levels. There are police officers who do very little aside from conduct traffic. There are police officers who spend most of their time at a desk. Even if we assume that all police officers commit some kind of theft through traffic tickets, the appropriate and proportionate punishment for theft is not death. It is a dangerous error to claim that it is justified to kill all police officers on the grounds set forth by Mr. Cantwell.

Calling for the blanket death of all cops is not the appropriate response to whatever unknown/unproven aggressions one particular cop may or may not have committed. Central to creating a reality absent the institutionalized violence of the police state is the recognition of  individual rights, individual responsibilities, and individual accountability based on specific individual actions and consequences. It is not about probabilities, possibilities, or likelihoods based on one’s profession/membership in a group/gang and what one has likely done and/or will do. That’s called statism.

In sum, it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to indiscriminately condone killing any particular group of people with no regard to individual actions. In application to Cop Block’s mission, we are are certainly a diverse group of people with a wide range of opinions. However, most of us agree with the above-stated conception of the non-aggression principle. We also seek to avoid inflammatory calls for violence, although we fully embrace the right of self-defense and realize that it is necessary and justified.


Georgia Sand

Georgia (George) Sand is an attorney located in sunny California. She enjoys beer, jogging, the beach, music, and chatting with her cats in her spare time.

  • John Q Public


  • John Q Public

    Yes, there’s all kind of “non aggressive” types on this site as well as the copblock facebook page. Of course, when there are copblock facebook posts glorifying the killing of police officers, it just shows copblock’s true colors. If you want to call yourselves “non-aggressive,” then why do you allow idiots like Cantrell on your page? You even put stories written by him on here as well. One of you posted it there with the phrase “The good news is, there are two less police officers in the world.” I know you don’t care about two police officers killed in cold blood along with a citizen who tried to stop two lunatics (who, by the way, were followers of your page), but wow. Glorifying the two cowards who shot the officers and now trying to backpedal? And reading some of the comments on that and other articles you have posted on facebook, it seems that you have attracted a bunch of psychotic people while souring people who merely want police accountability. I’ll now wait for the other lunatic “pig” cop haters to respond to my rant. All it will do is merely prove a point as to what copblock has really become: a cop hater site that promotes violence, either directly or indirectly.

  • John Q Public

    I wonder why DEO and Adam Mueller, who commonly spews hate, isn’t on your list? Hmmm…

  • Nicole LeAnn Stout

    Police are the biggest gang in the USA. Here is the definition of a gang. It used to include everyone who dressed the same, but they obviously changed that up.
    Main Entry: gang
    Function: verb
    Date: 1856
    transitive verb :  to assemble or operate simultaneously as a group b :  to arrange in or produce as a gang 2 :intransitive verb  to move or act as a gang
    © 2014 Merriam-Webster, Inc.     

    It sickens me that the biggest gang in the USA is paid for by the people they hurt. I don’t want to pay people who don’t help me when I need help, and have to fear going out in public further because these gang members get away with the crimes and negligence they commit.

  • Today’s cops are nothing but pigs – jackbooted, trigger-happy, power-mad, arrogant, little tin gods that were picked on in school, due to being anti-social outcasts. Every time one catches a slug and cacks off, I laugh like a jackal.

  • John Q Public

    “Calling for the blanket death of all cops is not the appropriate response to whatever unknown/unproven aggressions one particular cop may or may not have committed.”

    Way to prove the authors of copblock wrong.

  • You don’t know how to read, do you?

    I said: “Every time one catches a slug and cacks off, I laugh like a jackal.”

    What does that supposedly call for?

  • Josh

    You people are retarded. Grow a pair and support your own goddamn cause. “Oooh cops are baaad” isn’t going to do anything.

  • JackRabbitSlim

    I agree with Chris Cantwell 100%. The world *is* better off without those two scumbags. The only thing I regret about what he wrote is that he did not call for a full-scale protest of their funerals.
    Just because you’re non-violent (as in not about to kill cops yourself) doesn’t mean you can’t rejoice when someone else does.

  • JackRabbitSlim

    Agree with you, but you’re wrong on one thing: cops were the jockish types who used to hold kids heads down in the toilet, then they realized you can’t legally do that as an adult, so they joined the police force just to be able to pick on people again.

  • tz1

    You’ve had no shortage of “all cops are the same thugs” articles.
    I’ve also pointed out the problem with a mere principle. Individuals become their own legislature, judiciary, and executive. No community evaluation of cases, i.e. courts? Then Cantwell is right since you are in no position to judge the sovereign shooters or sovereign victims. Kings go to war against kings – justice and law don’t enter into it.

    “Imminent danger” and “justified violence” – are the definitions up to individuals or does there need to be community agreement? We don’t even agree on the definition of “person” or “human being”. Mine is from conception to natural death. So how to resolve a woman’s liberty v.s. her baby’s life? Who shoots first? If you are pro-life as I am, you see 4000 murders – aggression initiated against the innocent daily. I know you can twist principle into pretzeliple in justifying violence, theft, fraud you want to justify. But then I come back to the critical question. When definitions differ, do we leave it up to each individual, or if not, how is that not coercion and aggression?

  • I don’t believe that Christopher Cantwell is far off here. There are two resources from Murray Rothbard that may help to explain this more eloquently than myself. First, from Rothbard’s Confiscation and the Homestead Principle:

    “The libertarian sees the State as a giant gang of organized criminals, who live off the theft called “taxation” and use the proceeds to kill, enslave, and generally push people around. Therefore, any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty.”

    Rothbard believed that individuals had the right to liberate property that was held by the state. If someone were to occupy a police station, for example, this would not be a violation of the non-aggression principle (from the Rothbardian point of view).

    This does not tell us anything about the use of force, yet. However, we can expect that any individual who attempted to confiscate state property would be met with force, most likely lethal force. And, in turn, said individual would be justified in using lethal force as defense. For example, if someone attempted the occupation of a police station and was met with gunfire they would be justified in returning fire.

    The second example from Rothbard is from Society Without A State:

    “Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield.”

    This may be best understood in the context of Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty (Ch 13 on punishment). Even if we don’t accept that state law enforcement is committing aggression at all points in time (although I would say that they are), as long as an individual doles out justice to the “right” cop then it would be justified.

    Would this justify the assassination of random police? Maybe not. Yet, it would justify extreme actions. In the Rothbardian worldview an illegitimate arrest is tantamount to kidnapping. Illegitimate imprisonment is tantamount to slavery. These are crimes that Rothbard did believe could be responded to with lethal force.

    Moreover, if we accept Rothbard’s view that the state is a gang then we truly are being constantly aggressed upon by its enforcers. If a person cannot walk into a neighborhood due to fear of a gang, this is a form of aggressive coercion. Similarly, if a person cannot drive a vehicle without his papers, or if they must be fearful of a violent confrontation due to possessing a plant or chemical substance, this is also coercive aggression. The aggression is systemic and in place before the physical confrontation occurs. (If not, we could not call taxation aggression until the tax man arrived at the doorstep with a firearm to collect taxes.)

    Rothbard did believe that the response must be proportional to the threat, but in the case of law enforcement the threat is always a potential fatality, or of a sufficiently severe nature (kidnapping, slavery) that violence is warranted. Any individual who effectively resists the police is putting him or herself in a position to be killed by the police.

    This is not a collective assessment of each and every officer. It does not collectivize the police. It does not claim guilt by association. Rather, it is due to the specific actions of each and every officer when they don a uniform, pick up a weapon and make an arrest.

    A man who puts on a uniform, picks up a rifle and enters a small village in Afghanistan is committing an act of aggression even if he has yet to fire a shot. The threat is potentially lethal and thus can be justifiably responded to with lethal force by the inhabitants of the village. You can’t condemn the villager that leans out of his window and takes a shot at the occupying soldier. The force is proportional to the threat. The same is true for an armed gang that puts on a uniform and acts as an occupying force domestically (the police).

  • Peaceful Streets

    This is a very positive post. Thank you.

  • Scott Bush

    Good call Cop Block. Cantwell’s mother should have swallowed- the liberty movement would be better off.

  • Mike

    Protest at a funeral of an officer that I am at and see how long it takes before you are screaming for one to help you.

  • keepitreal

    I wonder if he’s purchased the obligatory wrist-watch camera……

  • keepitreal


    They were followers of this site, huh? Do you even realize just how fucking stupid that is? Let me help you out – YOU, ALSO, ARE A FOLLOWER OF THIS SITE. YES, TROLLISH ONE, YOU. So if your casting aspersions on anybody who reads here because of some tenuous association with somebody else who reads here and did fucked up shit, you’re talking of yourself!!!! I always assumed you were one of the less bright, thanks for the verification.

  • keepitreal

    And saying it was justifiable ISN’T endorsing it? I think a re-evaluation of who it is that is retarded might be in order for you.

  • keepitreal

    First sign of going nuts is rambling manifestos. And v.s.? Really?

  • keepitreal

    And then follow it up with felony charges for you. And possibly even civil rights violations. Idiot.

  • keepitreal

    Oh, so you’re psychic and know that those cops were no good, huh? What if they were the only 2 decent cops on that force? Here’s news for you – That fucking scumbag and his fat ugly bitch were both nuts. It’s a stroke of fate that they fixated on cops, and not postmen, of gas station owners, or abortion doctors, or whatever cause they might have taken up. There is no way to know if it was karma for fucked up stuff they did, or if they were good guys who shouldn’t have had that done to them. And if you rejoice when random people get murdered for no reason other than the clothes they were wearing, you might not be violent in the literal sense of the word, but you’re defective regardless. A stable and balanced mind understands that what those two did was fucking horrible.

  • Does this mean you don’t support the good ‘ole American rights to protest and speak freely?

  • keepitreal

    You, my friend, are nuts.

  • keepitreal

    And the game show question was – Among the stupid douchebags that post on this site, what ranking is JQP, in terms of total douchebaggery?

    You’re Correct!!!!!!

  • No, the two are not one in the same (but they can overlap).

    You could find it justified, but not support it for various reasons. For example, the fact that killing two police officers in a CiCi’s Pizza has little strategic value.

    One could take the stance; “It is not wrong – but it is a bad idea.” For example, heroin use is not a moral wrong, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

  • John Q Public

    Who pissed in your rice crispies?

  • As a follower of this site, it is clear that John Q Public should also be put on a anti-terrorism watch list and a no-fly list.

    Someone call the police! We’ve got to recognize the red flags!


  • Ever notice how people don’t focus on gas station owners, barbers or mechanics? Maybe there is a reason that such ire, ire to the very tipping point of violence, is focused on American law enforcement.

  • John Q Public

    Who’s trolling? I’m certainly not. Did I say everyone? No I didn’t. You’re focusing on the wrong thing. I don’t know why you’re trying to throw someone else’s actions back on me. I guess its ok for all of the “kill pigs” idiots to vilify everything. I might be a follower if you will, but I certainly don’t advocate the use of violence. And I certainly don’t celebrate cold blooded killings like some of these sick idiots do.

  • John Q Public


  • Maybe. But if my (Rothbardian-based) premises are true then so is the conclusion. It’s all consistent.

    I’m not even a big fan of Cantwell. I didn’t come here to defend him or his arguments. This is just the NAP and Rothbard’s “Punishment and Proportionality” to its logical conclusions.

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    the NAP is about the initiation of aggression. if someone aggresses against you then you are justified to try to make them stop by any means necessary. it kind of like how the cops are “justified” to use any force necessary to make you pull over for going 4 miles over the speed limit up to and including deadly force. in the first case an aggressor gets killed by those he aggressed against. in the other, the one aggressed upon gets killed for not submitting to the aggression. somehow you think that the cop is in the right because of his badge?

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    violence for the “win”

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    exactly. the liberty movement is much better recording cops and beggin for freedom. works every time. remember when that one country voted for freedom and got it? neither do i

  • beware mouse

    ?? well i think i get it..

  • Jarmey Fowler

    I’d like to say a few things.

    1. I like you guys (cop block)

    2. Cantrell is, and as far as I can tell always has been, a fucking moron. Why anyone associates with him is a mystery.

    3. Libertarian dogma is no different than catholic dogma or any other type of dogma. If you have an ideology based on an immutable principle you haven’t though though things enough.

  • tjg1984

    You’re name-calling and accusing one of the co-founders of Cop Block of not understanding and supporting his “own goddamn cause”? A shift in perception of cops will do something; escalating to violence against them at this point will likely prevent such a shift. When I look at the Cop Block logo, I see a camera, not a gun, pointed at a cop. This statement reaffirms what many current and former followers/members/supporters of Cop Block thought we were signing up for, and I’m glad the signatories put it out there.

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    then they need to change their motto because clearly to them a badge does grant extra rights

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    yes it is better to hold one group of people above another group. that is a better basis for an ideology

  • Georgia Sand

    The difference in application of the NAP seems to be whether it is to be applied as a collective, or as to individuals.

    Consider the statement “stolen property should be liberated.” By whom? Based on my interpretation of the NAP, and the position stated above, the person who has the right to liberate it is the rightful owner. I wouldn’t be cheering just because some other thief came and stole stolen property for themselves.

    Similarly, if there is a victim of theft, aggression, initiation of violence, whatever, that victim, or whoever he delegates, has the right to seek restitution. If a random, unrelated third party came in and killed the aggressor, that is just an arbitrary act of violence.

    Applied to police – if a Cop steals from Citizen, Citizen may well have a moral right to get his property back from Cop. Citizen can also delegate his right to restitution to someone else. However, an unrelated third party cannot come and steal from Cop, and claim that he is justified because Cop previously committed theft upon someone else.

    Cops, as a group, do commit plenty of theft. They also occasionally murder, rape, and pillage. However, victims are justified in responding to actual, and individual acts of those crimes. People cannot just go around shooting any cop they please on the grounds that the cop is a member of a generally reprehensible and violent group, and has a tendency to initiate force on others.

    The issue cannot be analyzed by probabilities or possibilities, or what cops are likely to do. They must dealt with based on their actual and individual actions. If those cops didn’t actual injure those shooters, there was no cause for violence at that moment, and much less deadly force.

  • John Q Public

    It calls for the fact you revel in another person’s death. Its disgusting.

  • John Q Public

    Do you think that its ok to murder a cop merely because he is eating a pizza? How is that justifiable? Well, its not. This instance has nothing to do with cops being aggressors. It has to do with a couple of lunatics who killed three people in cold blood. That’s it.

  • Took you a while to dream that one up, huh? I think it’s disgusting that pigs slaughter innocent people by the truckload, while you sit there with your nose stuck up a pig’s ass.

  • John Q Public

    Really? You’re part of what’s wrong with this world. You’re sick and you might want to get your shrink to adjust your meds.

  • Many words signifying nothing, coming from a delusional resident of a padded cell. I think your straitjacket is a tad too tight, Poindexter, time to call for an orderly.


  • RaymondbyEllis

    He pissed on yours I think…

  • RaymondbyEllis

    And when other cops stand around when one cop commits excessive force, therefore all cops are enablers for the rest that use excessive force.

    You should take your same complaints to PoliceOne, for some of the writers and a lot of the commenters. A minority there come off as psychotic, to use your word, or just unthinking brutes by promoting unlawful violence. In fact, I’ve used PoliceOne essays to show my children insular and fallacious thinking, and the comments sections to show them that there are cops that are sick, unethical, immoral, and dangerous. Fortunately, there are as many or more comments to show my children that there are honorable cops living up to high standards of decency and ethics. But using your metric….

  • RaymondbyEllis

    He always forgets that he follows and comments. Given what 31B wrote about some of them submitting false stories, he may have written one.

    OT, but about copblockers baiting cops to do bad things: when is a sting only a sting? When it’s done by cops. When it’s done to them, it’s baiting. One is good, because it finds people that do bad things, the other bad because it makes cops do bad things.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Here’s the everyone: ‘Of course, when there are copblock facebook posts glorifying the killing
    of police officers, it just shows copblock’s true colors.” That’s the everyone. Not just those doing it but “copblock’s true colors”.

    Like I said, go look at PoliceOne.

    (I have the same stand regarding the murder or negligent killing of someone, it shouldn’t have happened and we punish for it. For murder we punish more severely, for negligence we punish less. For a cop shooting someone with a cellphone, as an example, we too often say “office safety” combined with “split-second decision”, so it’s all good but regrettable, and the cop’s really suffering so we should feel for him.

    I’m cynical over double-standards.)

  • RaymondbyEllis

    And there we are in agreement.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yeah, it does. He celebrates it, and below tries to argue as Humpty Dumpty.
    Me, I’m nor more saddened by the killing of a cop than any other person who didn’t deserve it, and no less saddened. It’s a disgusting and despicable act by anyone that does it.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I’m sorry, I just don’t get your comment. I don’t see how it follows.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    “Protest at a funeral of an officer that I am at”. Why are you on your smartphone at a funeral? Why are you so disrespectful? I’m surprised your behavior wasn’t addressed by those around you.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    So very dead on. It’s the problem of people who think in terms of “groups”, any member has exactly and all those characteristics they think the group has. Worse, they’re often wrong on the characteristics.

    Police have the same problem.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Oh, such poor choices. People have and do focus on gas station owner’s at least since the 1973 Gas Crisis (they were physically assaulted during the Crisis) and anytime gas jumps up, mechanics are generally not trusted, but I’ll give you barbers.

    I don’t see a tipping point for violence except in the overwrought minds of a few. Most in this country believe police violence can never happen to them because they are law-abiding, such fools, and because they idealize police, more foolishness.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    If that was what he said you’d be right, but that was just what you said. He was talking about dogma and how it interferes with thinking.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    ” Central to creating a reality absent the institutionalized violence of the police state is the recognition of individual rights, individual responsibilities, and individual accountability based on specific individual actions and consequences.
    It is not about probabilities, possibilities, or likelihoods based on
    one’s profession/membership in a group/gang and what one has likely done
    and/or will do. That’s called statism.”

    If I removed “Central…state” and “That’s called statism”, who would disagree with that statement? Speak out…

  • RaymondbyEllis

    He didn’t prove the authors’ wrong. In fact, he buttressed their argument and you agree. It wasn’t an appropriate response.

    Talk about hate clouding thinking..

  • ohiocopblock

    Signed – Founder of Ohio Cop Block

  • Dan Wareham

    So if you are so anti aggression, Why have you allowed comments like Cantwell ‘ s to go unremarked on for all this time?

    Why the sudden case of religion when it comes to your people calling for the deaths of all cops on a regular basis on your website?

    I can appreciate the change in tone. . As long as it is followed up with action by you and your people in admonishing those posters who do calm for violence against all cops.

  • t

    My badge says I can do whatever I want….Because of my badge….You forget that the constitution you love created a government….we are the overlords…..get used to it

  • t

    My badge and my gun say I can do as I want….What do you think you are going do bout it

  • t

    theres alot you don’t get

  • t

    The first amendment says congress can’t abridge your right to speak freely….Where does it say officers can’t? What do you think you’re going to do about it?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Oh, absolutely. I’m still perplexed by Quantum Mechanics and cladistics, among many other things. It’s why I asked the question, because I didn’t get how it follows.
    An arrogant bastard thinks they get everything, and are just an RCH from being omniscient, so they would never have to ask. In fact, they bring the truth to others.
    You’re not that guy though, instead you’re just a lying asshole using someone else’s handle.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yeah, football players and baseball players were anti-social outcasts. Cops come from all those HS groups which ignored you. Obviously even the brainiacs did.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yet Georgia Sand said something different than you, while still drawing from the same fountain.

    BTW, Marxist dialectic is very consistent and follows from the premises. It’s all about the premises. So after you prove the Rothbardian premises, then you can drop the “if”. At least you used an “if”…

  • JC

    Copblock is extremely violent. The only reason why they are writing this article is because Cantwell is being looked at in connection with the shootings in Las Vegas. Now copblock is running away. Cantwell wants too move to Keene. Most of the posts on this site are violent in nature not only towards police but those that render their opinions. I’m sure the government is monitoring this site nonstop. Especially now with the police shootings in Las Vegas.

  • Jeremy Derifield

    Thanks for doing this, guys.

  • t

    Oh my. My goodness what a stinky mess.

    Sands: where you been? Missed ya. Well, sorta but not really. Your non linear thought process is as clear as ever though

    •Using a reasonable amount of violence….
    •Using a reasonable amount of violence….
    • At the very worst….acceptable for a family member or private defense agency to EXACT some kind of FORCEFUL PUNISHMENT.

    how can your mind think those ideas can co-exist ??????

    But setting that nonsense aside –
    Have you ever seen the videos of Ademo, or Pete, or any other CBer when they very aggressively interject themselves into situations that don’t involve them? Heck, even Pete trying to aggressively spew his opinions at officers. BTW….you do know that the 1st amendment right to free speech doesn’t contain a requirement that I listen,right?
    Anyway…..for such a learned person as yourself, I’d think you would have lead the charge to change the sites tag line about shines badges. It’s not rights. It’s authority. Big difference. But you knew that.

    Anyway…..glad you’re back. Well….not really.

  • t

    Ray: While I have to give my imposter credit for a good comment…..that one wasn’t from me.

  • Rezist2Exist

    So there is a fine print to the NAP? This is news. Ya’ll should debate with Cantwell.

  • John Q Public

    Really? You’re really fucked in the head I see.

  • John Q Public

    They got what they wanted… views on their website and facebook page.

  • John Q Public

    You’re kinda getting bipolar you know.

  • John Q Public

    Not really. He’s just trying to be an internet tough guy. Its boring.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Honestly, he almost fooled me, he sounded so much like you, so childish, which should give you pause to reflect…given you think a lying asshole makes a good comment.

    If that comment stood alone , he would have fooled me because it is so you. Unfortunately for him, he made another comment directly above that that you wouldn’t make drunk on your ass or high on prescription drugs, whichever leads you to ellipsis. So the next comment from a “t.” should have been a repudiation of the other comment. It wasn’t, and thus…

    Leaving me to enjoy writing my comment directed at you, while planning the final sentence at the same time. It’s like the old doublemint commercials using twins, it doubled my pleasure.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Okay, let me sort your comment out.

    I’m exhibiting bipolar behavior because I see a similarity between comments here and PoliceOne? Or I’m exhibiting bipolar because your charting some sort of depressive phase and manic phase from my writing? If there’s a third possibility, you’ll get your chance.

    On the former, you really can’t see beyond the words to the underlying reasoning? There are cops at PoliceOne that think no differently than people here using the word “pig”. It’s the same how, only the what is different.

    As to the latter, you aren’t qualified. You’ve never given any hint that you’ve dealt directly with people that are bipolar or anything other than your normal, whatever that is.Do you know the difference between atypical bipolar and typical bipolar? Don’t cheat doing a quick google, because I hold back.

    Like I told you a ways back, I have direct experience dealing with a bipolar child (who sadly is now schizophrenic, but realizes it and takes her meds because she wants to achieve), as well an ADHD and ODD child. Now I do have book larnin on these ficzions, cuz it’s really impotant to larn more than just what you live (that’s a tribute to t.).

  • Libertymike

    What about the murder of Kelly Thomas?
    What about the murder of Jose Guerena?
    What about the murder of Aisha Jones?
    What did you have to say about the above murders, all by cops?

  • Libertymike

    Well, much of the time, cops were the kids who were second string on the football team who could not nail the pretty girl and who had parents that also were in the public sector and who could not get into a four year college, much less a top tier school.

  • keepitreal

    Shit, I’ll go one better – Shoot 60 rounds at 2 newspaper ladies who POSED NO THREAT AT ALL, and the DA excuses it because the cops involved were scared. Hmmmm. Somehow I’m thinking that wouldn’t fly if some non-cop shot a cop because some other cop was out killing people at random. You know, the 2 faced bullshit that’s handed out and all.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    If that’s your measure of an internet tough guy, we need to talk. Elsewhere would be best to avoid embarrassing you on this forum.

    I still think he pissed on your rice crispies. I do only because I don’t think that way (really I don’t, I generally avoid metaphors involving excreting) but once you used it I saw how it could be applied.

    He called you a douchbag and that makes him an internet tough guy? You’ve called me bipolar numerous times, so that makes you what? An internet fake psychologist? Oops, actually it does.

  • keepitreal

    That’s just his go-to type of answer when he gets shut down by a logical argument. You’re a criminal, or bi-polar, or whatever it takes for him to attempt to bring you down to his level.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    One more comment from a lying asshole. But it does make your legs tingle when people notice you, doesn’t it?

  • keepitreal

    “killing two police officers in a CiCi’s Pizza has little strategic value”

    Dude, get professional help, The road you’re traveling isn’t going to take you any place you really want to go.

  • Alexandre Karpov

    And your example of Aggressor 1 and Aggressor 2 doesn’t hold any water.You say “2 randomly attacks 1”. This is nothing even remotely close to what Cantwell and Co. suggest. Aggressor 1 is attacked by people who know that he represents an armed and dangerous gang, that is responsible for numerous crimes in the past, and will undoubtedly commit more in the future.

  • keepitreal

    Shut up bitch. You’re a proven lying cheese-dick. Nobody cares what you spew out. And do yourself a favor, stay out of SD county. Few folks there would like to chat with their favorite parole officer.

  • keepitreal

    You don’t have a freaking clue what you’re talking about. None.

  • Libertymike

    Good point. Perhaps Copblock should disassociate itself from those who demonstrate that they are incapable of presenting apt analogies.

  • Libertymike

    Where does it say that the pork can?
    Parasite personified.

  • keepitreal

    Actually, I’m trying to be an internet wit. If I were trying to be a tough-guy, I’d make the obligatory comments about if I ever meet you in public, etc, etc, etc. But I’d have to be angry for that, and your weak and ineffectual ass couldn’t affect me that strongly. If you could anybody. You’re far better just laughed at or ignored.

  • keepitreal

    I forgot to add – he’s a STUPID douchebag.

  • John Q Public

    I’ve celebrated none of those either.

  • John Q Public

    I got my fake training from mouse. LOL

  • John Q Public

    Chances are that we won’t meet in public, and if we did, we probably wouldn’t know it anyhow. And, if I didn’t affect you so much, then why bother responding to me? I guess its a game to you, the same as it is with me.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    That’s what cops do and they’re are excused for it because they didn’t sign on to put their lives in jeopardy. Officer safety is the most important part of their job. If they shoot people with cellphones, it’s the fault of the person with the cellphone.

    They have to make split-second decisions to keep them safe. If it involves shooting someone who was no threat, well, they should be given sympathy and empathy because they suffer anguish. OTH, the family that sues, because they actually suffered the real anguish and damage, are just looking for a payday.

  • JC

    Thank you for proving my point. You are as realistic as a paraplegic lap dancer.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Now you crossed the line beyond internet tough guy. Unfortunately, I’m uncharacteristically at a loss for words. I’d make something up, but I prefer to leave that to others.

  • JC

    Again, this is someone called Centurion. He is aggressive and in everyone’s faces while making claims he is nonviolent.

    NAVY TIMES (June 05, 2006)

    News Briefs

    Phony baloney recruiter

    He posed as a Navy recruiter, wearing the uniform and medals and taking part
    in a Veterans Day ceremony.

    Now, Matthew Phillips of Springfield, Vt., has been sentenced to six months
    probation for wearing the uniform without authorization.

    Phillips, 31, pleaded guilty in February, acknowledging that in December
    2004, he entered the U.S. Naval Recruiting Station in Keene, N.H., wearing a
    Navy lieutenant’s uniform that had a SEAL badge.

    Last year, Phillips wore the same uniform, accompanied by Navy recruiters to
    a high school in Bellows Falls, Vt. He also acknowledged he wore the uniform
    on Veterans Day in 2004, in Claremont, N.H., where he played a major role in
    a public ceremony and was photographed

  • RaymondbyEllis

    And why would you let him mentor you? Just one more failure…

  • Georgia Sand

    Actually, that’s exactly what Cantwell proposes. He stated that it was impossible to commit aggression upon aggressors. That means anyone, at any time, can for any reason, kill cops, regardless of who was the victim, or what that particular cop did. If that’s not what Cantwell meant, too bad. That’s what he wrote.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Well, I am a criminal. I got a speeding ticket for the first and only time 12 years ago. Worse, when I was eighteen I was detained all the way to a police station, and then let go without an arrest report. Okay, the latter doesn’t make me a criminal, but that speeding ticket sure does.

    As for bipolar, I think standards should be applied across the board but that really makes me unipolar. Just doesn’t have the same ring as bipolar.

  • michael thompson

    When cops are held accountable for their crime we the people won’t have to do it for you…till then it is what it is no one but your self and the police to blame…ask your self one question john q public…why is there a need for a Facebook page like cop block….
    Their is only one answer
    And everyone will agree

    Bad cops

    So i don’t no how you can win this argument just not possible

    And until you have lost a loved one to bad cops You’ll never see both sides….
    Numbers speak for them selves
    Majority of police are bad cops

    Bottom line bad cops gave a bad name to good cops witch i don’t think there are any good cops out there

  • jtaylor991

    “…the fact that a COP is inherently a person who says “I have the right to use extortion and violence against anyone who enters my jurisdiction, period…and I WILL use those methods against anyone who does not comply with my demands”…that is a THREAT of violence and a violation of the NAP. Simply BEING a cop is a crime.” -Bill Deily

    An on point analysis of the situation that totally overshadows the reasoning used here, which is’t even comparable. In the situation of a cop, Aggressor 1 would have been in a constant state of threatening violence on Aggressor 2. This article’s comparison is not applicable.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I should have addressed this too. I don’t see him as trying to drag people down to his level because I don’t see it as a higher or lower. He just expresses his viewpoint. Sometimes poorly, sometimes well. Sometimes cheaply, sometimes with generosity. And sometimes he is just a douchebag, lately with illustrations.

    I do hold some here in high regard. JQP did claim that I speak out of my ass most of the time, so my high regard for him may just be a fart.

  • Libertymike

    Okay, which individual should be held accountable for the murder of the several hundred children under the age of 17 by means of Obama ordered drone strikes?

  • John Q Public

    Ah, sarcasm….

  • Georgia Sand

    You want me to literally name an individual to hold accountable? I don’t know. It would probably a combination of a bunch of people. But the fact that I can’t name specific names doesn’t mean I am wrong.

    The point is – there are individual actors who deserve to be held to account. The fact that it can be difficult to sort out, or identify who is responsible, doesn’t mean the concept is wrong. You shouldn’t blanketly just punish everyone who is a member of a group, or wears a certain uniform. That is, unless you’re a collectivist/socialist. If operating from that type of logic, then I suppose blanket punishment logically follows.

  • The State is Criminal

    This is not a response to those running copblock, but to those that call themselves voluntaryists (I would not call them voluntaryists) and judge people based solely on their affiliation or would condemn someone to death for something like theft. Judging people based solely on affiliation
    is very statist thing to do. If one is a cop, I would guess that the
    probability is high that they are committing acts of aggression, but a
    cop sitting behind a desk tasked with managing the recovery of stolen
    cars may commit no more aggression than a secretary in an IRS office. Sure, some become cops so they can commit violent acts without legal
    consequences, but that is not all of them. And In my personal experience interacting with cops, whether or not they are robbing me, it’s been about 50/50 that they appear be a nice person vs. a jerk. I judge individuals by their
    actions, not solely by their affiliations. And I believe the average cop would not even call for killing someone for theft; they would give them the courtesy of accepting responsibility for that crime before resorting to killing. And if one’s values would conclude that any act of aggression should be met with deadly force or could be justifiably met with deadly force, then I implore them to think about what kind of world that would be. I think that it would be a lot like what statists think that anarchy is. If any minor offense could legally be met with deadly force, then I can imagine minor disagreements escalating to all out war between neighbors everywhere. Without proportional responses being the norm, things will get ugly fast.

  • Not from what I’ve seen, the ones I have encountered are short, fat, dimwitted, power-mad psychopaths. You are of course entitled to your opinion; perhaps you are one of them. Have a nice day.

  • For some, perhaps – but like I remarked to the combative fellow below – the ones I have encountered are almost invariably short, fat, power-mad psychopaths.

    Their swaggering arrogance betrays their deep-rooted sense of inferiority and inadequacy, so they over-compensate by bullying others. Psychologically, their self-hatred is transferred to those they terrorize, giving them a false sense of superiority.

  • That is supposed to be a retort – how old are you – 15?

  • Tell that to all of the innocent people your pigs kill, then get back to me.

  • That’s the goddamned truth.

  • Interesting analysis, my compliments.

  • Your evident hatred for those with whom you disagree seems to cloud your thinking. Try being more tolerant of those who oppose your personal worldview.

  • John Q Public

    Just turned 16.

  • Jeremy Reynolds


  • Jeremy Reynolds

    if you saw me beating the shit out of some chick would you jump to her defense and kick my ass? id hope you would. now what if a cop is doing the same thing? well its time to record that and upload to copblock

  • t

    Yes….I’m quite flattered.

  • Well… at least you admit it; I am old enough to be your grandfather.

    I do not usually interact with children, considering their youth and inexperience; I make an exception with this reply.

    That said, try living to my age, and then you may realize why I have no tolerance for police violating the law and abusing the citizenry, nor do I tolerate the infringement of civil rights and personal liberty by the government.

    I politely suggest that you read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is what my worldview is based on.

  • Grumpy Ol Fart

    How about all you whiners get off your asses and join the police forces and try to make a difference instead of just bittching about what they do.

  • John Q Public

    Never heard of them. I flunked out of civics class this last semester. I am going to summer school though.

  • John Q Public

    I flunked out of civics class this semester, so I’m not really sure what those are. I’ll ask while I’m in summer school though.

  • Alexander Vucelic


  • RAD

    “Conway193 John Q Public • 34 minutes ago

    I politely suggest that you read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights”

    And what are they based on? Conjectural assertions?

  • Alexander Vucelic


    Until there is a public presentation of their employment files – we really do not know anything about the cops who died.

    These cops may have been full blown sociopaths who myrdered a half dozen innocent Americans and raped 8 year old girls. Plenty of cops commit heinous crimes.

    Or these cops may have been decent human beings.

    We simply do not know. Curious why the PD won’t release their complete files

  • John Q Public

    Doesn’t matter. Its disgusting to glorify senseless violence of any type. And you’re right. There should be more known about the officers, like how the families of the fallen officers feel about two confirmed psychopaths murdering their loved ones. And actually, the percentage of police who commit crimes is less than 1%.

  • John Q Public

    Because its easier for them to beg their followers for money and talk shit on the internet.

  • They are the law of the land, authored by James Madison, who was one hell of a lot smarter than most folks today.

  • John Q Public

    Of course you don’t. What about bad doctors? They are responsible for FAR more deaths than police will ever be.

    1. 106,000 patients die each year from the negative effects of medication.

    2. 80,000 patients die each year due to complications from infections incurred in hospitals.

    3. 20,000 deaths per year occur from other hospital errors.

    4. 12,000 people die every year as a result of unnecessary surgery.

    5. 7,000 medical malpractice deaths per year are attributed to medication errors in hospitals.

    This totals up to 225,000 deaths each year, due to medical negligence of some nature. This does not even account for vast number of patients that survive medical negligence but suffer permanent injuries. I could not find exact statistics on how many medical malpractice cases were filed in a given year nationally.

    But, hey, cops are bad, right? Well, it seems doctors are far worse, but yet no one bitches about them. Why is that?

  • I can’t speak for the man, but I wonder if this is not a mischaracterization of Cantwell’s position. I hold a similar view, but I know that is not the way that I arrive at it.

    Law enforcement, as an institution, is a perpetual threat. An officer is not only engaging in an act of aggression when they pull you over, when they arrest you, or when they book you. They are also engaging in threat of an act of aggression – also a violation of the NAP – when they don a uniform and take on the role, actively threatening, that they are going to go out and commit aggression against people.

    Let me give you two hypothetical examples to try and explain it:

    1. A man walks into a police station, brandishes a weapon and shoots a cop. “No reason,” it is said.

    2. A man walks into a police station and pulls out a bag of marijuana. The police see it in and move in to arrest. As the police attempt to handcuff him (thus committing an act of aggression), he brandishes a firearm and shoots the cop.

    What is the fundamental difference in these two hypothetical situations? In the former, the threat of aggression (arrest) still loomed. We can see that from the latter, knowing well and good that the police would act upon that threat (arrest), that they would follow through with a stated or unstated threat to commit aggression.

    Now, if we accept the NAP we must accept that the second example would be justified. It is a clear act of self-defense. But if we reject the same act in the context of the first example, we are saying that a threat of aggression is not sufficient. Instead, we must wait until violence is actually used against us.

    Thus, it isn’t that there were probably past events the police did (although true), nor that it was probable that the police would do future events (also true). Those are not the real justification. The real justification is that, by acting in a role that is specifically designed to pose a threat to individuals – just as pointing a gun poses a threat to individuals – violence becomes justified as a matter of self-defense.

  • RAD

    How can a piece of paper that someone else wrote make you criminal?

  • RAD

    What facts, if any show that to be true beyond naked assertion? “Some guy said so” in other words. Does the assertion that the constitution is a law have a factual basis?

  • RAD

    “Georgia Sand Dio Söze • a day ago

    Based on my interpretation of the NAP, and the position stated above, the person who has the right to liberate it is the rightful owner”

    Who is the rightful owner of a department issued gun? Who is threatened by that gun?

  • RAD

    “Georgia Sand Dio Söze • a day ago
    If a random, unrelated third party came in and killed the aggressor, that is just an arbitrary act of violence.”

    What should a random unrelated third party do when they happen upon witnessing a violent crime? Say an attacker has a knife pointed at a victim. If the third party intervened and used force, would you characterize that forceful intervention as an act of aggression?

  • RAD

    “It further is absurd to say that mere probability that someone has committed (as yet unknown) crimes and will commit (as yet, unknown) crimes in the future is a good reason to shoot them while they are eating lunch.”

    What if they belong to a violent gang with a known pattern, practice, and stated official policy predicated on aggression which has issued standing threats to the populace at large? How would that factor into he analysis?

  • RAD

    “You shouldn’t blanketly just punish everyone who is a member of a group, or wears a certain uniform”

    What if that uniform identifies them as part of a group with a known documented stated written intent to use lethal aggression to enforce an agenda of predation? And if the group is known as armed and dangerous? Would defensive force(rather than punitive) be justifiable? Why or why not?

  • RAD

    “•Using a reasonable amount of violence….
    •Using a reasonable amount of violence….
    • At the very worst….acceptable for a family member or private defense agency to EXACT some kind of FORCEFUL PUNISHMENT.

    how can your mind think those ideas can co-exist ??????”

    Most ironic comment on the page.

  • RAD

    Do you draw a distinction between theft as in taking something by stealth and theft by violent intimidation backed by armed force in your analysis? Or is defensive force not warranted in both cases?

  • Yeah, it’s called the fact of civilization – without such Constitutional laws in place to prevent governmental tyranny, we would be slaves. If you cannot understand that concept, I cannot help you.

  • Matt Roach

    False, the percentage of criminal police who actually catch a charge is 1%. The percentage of cops who commit crimes is much larger and impossible to quantify due to thin blue line secrecy and wagon-circling, and general collusion.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    Release of the full and complete employment files would put to rest any questions about these 2 cops and their criminal past

    BTW – cops are 3 times more likely than regular Americans to committ sexual assault. Cops are 4 times more likely to physically abuse their spouse and children

    You finally going to agree with the rest of America about the senseless murders of Kelly Thomas & Andy Lopez ?

  • RAD

    That’s called a fallacious appeal to consequences: when you assert that a proposition is true because of the consequences of it being true. “if x were true it would have good consequences” is basically the form of your non-argument.
    “If Santa and the elves exist, it would motivate kids to behave, therefore Santa exists.” I’m not asking if BELIEVING in it has good consequences, I’m asking if there are facts showing the belief to be true?

  • Oh for chrissakes – you are looking for an argument, when there is none. I believe in nothing, I think that the US Constitution, as originally written, is the best method of government so far – if you can come up with a better solution – I wish you luck.

  • JC

    Freekeene and copblock support each other. This is Ian Bernard’s view about children should be able to have sex with adults.

  • John Q Public

    Do you have something to quantify that?

  • Cyrus Alexander

    Retards… I feel surrounded sometimes by you idiots.

  • John Q Public

    Listen to yourself and figure out who the real retard is.

  • John Q Public

    There is an ongoing problem with sexual assault in the U.S. military which has received extensive media coverage in the past several years. A 2012 Pentagon survey found that approximately 26,000 women and men were sexually assaulted. Of those, only 3,374 cases were reported.

    16 domestic abuse deaths were reported to the Family Advocacy Program in fiscal year 2010. In 81 percent of the cases, the alleged perpetrator was an active-duty troop.

    Also, 2010 saw an increase in the number of substantiated child maltreatment cases reported to Family Advocacy, from 4.8 incidents per one-thousand children in 2008 and 2009 to 5.7 per thousand in fiscal year 2010.

    Guess its not only the police that do it. Also, Kelly Thomas was from Fullerton, CA. Andy Lopez was from Santa Rosa, CA. While those deaths were tragic, and I’m not going to elaborate on them here, what do these have to do with the cold blooded murder of two Las Vegas NV police officers and an innocent bystander by two psychos? You keep trying to justify it like its righteous when its not.

  • Cyrus Alexander

    You know. Its funny because I agree with you a little bit on the terms of them acting innocent, like they don’t support violence here BUT all of this is fueling the fire to MORE of a war then a civil change in society. The real problem is people, they don’t know how to handle being peaceful. This is why cops exist, even the internet now allows us to bitch about our problems but it doesnt allow us to show solidarity or get our point across to everyone in a manor that can be respected and make a difference. Do we want a currupt America? Do we want a police state that could lead to potential war zones? No none of us do so why the fuck are we fighting over something that is yet to exist, which 7s a free America. Our personal opinions and views of how things should be are distorted in so many ways we will never agree on what is right due to personal feelings within our generation. We need to look at this situation and as a nation realized our generation has failed at supplying easy things like respect and humility and the ability to except what needs to happen for future generations to proceed peacefully in life.

  • Alexander Vucelic


    Cold blooded murder is correct when describing Kelly Thomas & Andy Lopez.

    Please do not misunderstand me – the tragic deaths of the police I do not support in any way.

    However, until Americans have access to the full employee files of the dead cops, there is no way to conclude if they were innocent or sociopaths.

  • The State is Criminal

    Fraud is theft. Defensive force is justifiable in both cases. Fraud committed by individuals that control the state is worse, from a destructiveness standpoint, than fraud committed by private individuals, but I don’t change what I believe is moral based on collectives. So I don’t believe that a single individual is responsible for all the state’s crimes. And therefore, I don’t believe defensive force in proportion to all of the state’s crimes against any individual is justifiable. I believe justifiable responses should be evaluated on a case by case basis. But even in cases where I believe that defensive force is justifiable, I don’t believe that it is always the best course of action. For example, assassinating a mass murder that is a leader in a still powerful organization can have disastrous consequences. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but a Nazi mass murder was assassinated in a place that the Nazi’s still had control of, and in response, the Nazi’s murdered an entire village. I don’t think it was worth it.

  • John Q Public

    I don’t care what they did in the past. They’re DEAD. Do we get to see the past histories of everyone who’s been murdered? No. So, what’s it any of your business as to how they lived? All we get to see is the psychos who committed the murder glamorized. Its bullshit. And I can’t see why their pasts have anything to do with their murder. The psychos had just moved to the area and probably had never met the two dead officers before anyhow. Since you want to know so bad, read this:

  • Alexander Vucelic

    So you agree that the murders of Kelly Thomas and Andy Lopez shouldn’t have anything to do with their past

  • Alexander Vucelic


    Perhaps the profound question you need to be asking is why would so many decent middle class Americans celebrate the killing of 2 cops ?

    One can condemn this all one wants, but police department leadership throughout the country should be asking ‘why are we losing the support of middle class Americans ?”

    John – I know you have looked up my background. You know My background is super duper Regean Republican. I tiotaly supported the LAPD during Rodney King. Now, my attitude about cops has Completly changed. My journey is typical of many.

    Ask yourself, why are so many conservative Americans no longer supporting their Police like in the past ?

  • t

    RAD: so says the fool who can’t even get the whole quote. Idiot.

  • t

    Georgia: I can’t even get a hello back from you? Hurtful.

  • just me

    Operation-Nation has covered more than 600 instances of police killing, assaulting and/or raping an American since 2006. The offending cop was placed on “paid administrative leave” within a day or two of the incident more than 90 percent of the time.

    Police across America know full well if they kill someone (on or off-duty), they will get an extended paid vacation, sometimes lasting years. They also know that it is extremely rare for cops to be held accountable in anyway for their actions.

    Mr. Kelly Thomas was beaten to death ON TAPE by Fullerton, Calif. cops Manuel Ramos, Jay Cicinnelli, et al. as he begged for his life in July 2011. It was a small victory for Americans when the aforementioned two killers were actually charged with murder and other crimes. But reality set in at trial when the cops were acquitted.

    A paid vacation, along with “atta boys” from fellow cops and Americans who love them, is only a dead human away. Even if they are fired from their current positions for killing or assaulting an American, another cop organization will hire them.

    Former Bella Vista, Ark. cop Coleman Brackney, in a rare occurrence in U.S. jurisprudence, was actually convicted of negligent homicide when he murdered James Ahern in January 2010. After serving the insulting 30 day jail sentence, he was hired as police chief in Sulphur Springs, Ark. last March.

    The incentives are too great to pass for cops, many of whom desire to kill already. Americans with common sense realize this.

  • John Q Public

    The main people I see celebrating MURDER are extremists and criminals. I don’t see “decent middle class Americans” saying these MURDERS are justified. Just look on the copblock facebook page. Their little diatribe celebrating the MURDER of the two officers were by and large met with disgust. The only ones celebrating it were the extremists and criminals. If the common person is celebrating the MURDERS, then why does copblock feel that they have to write a retraction to the story they posted?

  • The State is Criminal

    How is it summary execution of an individual that is affiliated with the state a proportional punishment? That doesn’t seem logical at all unless you judge individuals by the actions of other individuals.

  • Alexander Vucelic


    You recognize that Cops could be painted with the same brush ? Look at a highly regulated cop discussion forum such as police one – there are always posts by cops there celebrating the killing of innocent Americans.

    Telling yourself that only criminals and extremists despise cops is only going to further isolate PDs from the rest of America.

    PDs need to ask some hard questions why do a majority of Americans no longer think of cops as anything other than heavily armed thugs ?

  • The State is Criminal

    What if I just happened to be born to a family that has been known to extort local businesses. Would it be justifiable to summarily execute me?

    I don’t believe it is justifiable to punish an individual for the actions of other individuals. If that is one’s principle, to collectivize people, then, to be consistent, that principle must be applied to any collective (private gang, family, group of friends, etc.), not just the state. To even try to rationalize collective responsibility, you have to make overly complex rules and exceptions to rules.

    The Sunset of the State

    If an individual commits aggression, regardless of collective affiliation, I believe that defensive force (or force to achieve restitution) in proportion to that aggression would be justified. I say in proportion because any reasonable person would not condemn someone to death for violating “keep off the grass”. But even if, some action would justified by a consistent set of principles, it doesn’t necessarily mean that performing that action will produce positive results. Violent revolution is a horrible idea, and most historical cases of violent revolution ends with an even worse group of individuals in control of the state.

    An evolution of thinking is the only way that I can conceive peace in the world. Technology may end up accelerating that evolution in thinking.

  • The State is Criminal

    No individual is in a constant state of threatening violence. Even agents of the state sleep. And not every cop is willing to take that conceived right to the extent of deadly force; although, those cops get weeded out over time.

    Also, you are making the assumption that all cops are out in the field. If simply being a cop is a crime, then simply being a IRS secretary is a crime. And for that matter, anyone that is willing to use the state for aggressive purposes is committing a crime. And even if one accepts that simply being a cop is a crime, it doesn’t follow that all crimes justify summary execution.

    I accept that most cops are criminals, but I can’t accept that the mere fact of being a cop justifies summary execution. If I did, then I would have to apply that same “morality” to all individuals. And I’m not willing to condemn someone to death for any threat of force (deadly or not) or for any act of aggression (deadly or not). If I (or my loved one) was a victim of threats of deadly force or acts of deadly force, I would prefer compensation other than the aggressor forfeiting their life. In the moment, if I thought it was reasonable to do so, I would defend myself (or my loved one) with deadly force, but the death of an aggressor does not bring back the life of the victim. In a world with market law, I imagine that some aggressors would not be permitted to live free with the non-aggressors, but I can also imagine that a victim (or an advocate of a victim) may choose to allow an aggressor the choice to live under the supervision and confinement of a reputable business that provides such services in order to provide some compensation for their crime(s).

  • The State is Crimainl

    “Imminent danger” and “justified violence” require some third party arbitrator, otherwise any individual could make up any definition for anything and do whatever they want.

    Government is not community agreement because government is not voluntary funded. Community agreement would require the accumulation of individual voluntary actions producing some outcome. The only way that I can think of to achieve community agreement on legal matters is the same way that community agreement is achieved on which cell phones are produced.

  • The State is Crimainl

    “We the people” don’t do anything. There are only individual actors. And I very much doubt that you are personally going around executing cops.

  • The State is Criminal

    The NAP is is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. I don’t believe that “responding to any act of aggression with deadly force is legitimate” can be be derived from the NAP.

  • RAD

    What do you think it would take to end police aggression? More cops?

  • RAD

    What do you think is the solution to the social problem of police aggression?

  • The State is Crimainal

    That’s right, we only have rights because the constitution says so.

  • The State is Criminal

    Don’t forget that they keep us safe. Without them, we’d be getting raped daily. All those married men would just snap and start raping everyone because people are so evil. They would even rape other men because they only reason that men marry women because the government says they should. Except for the police, of course, they are angels.

  • It isn’t a punishment. It is a defensive action. Law enforcement officers, as individuals, have taken the role of an occupying force that poses an immediate, persistent and legitimate threat to individuals. It is important to understand the NAP and the Rothbardian ethics behind it.

    (Even if it were a punishment it might still be defensive under strict Rothbardian criteria, but that is a different approach.)

    This explains in more depth:

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    So very, very well said, JQP. Thank you for this.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I wrote a fake one last year. :) I even made a bit of a hint where the first word or every paragraph made out “This Is Completely False.” and submitted a photo from I found on Goggle Images claiming it was me to bolster my story. The facts contained in the story, including the police department, were completely fabricated.

    It was to prove that this site will do ANYTHING to try and advance their cause – including posting false stories. Had the moderator who approved the story done the most basic bit of research, it would have been rejected and the integrity of the site would have been maintained.

  • Alexander Vucelic
  • Jeremy Reynolds

    they killed them because they were pigs not because they were eating pizza. sure they were lunatics but lets get the facts straight.

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    i dont love the constitution. there are a few good points in there that inform people of certain inalienable rights, but the rest of it is rubbish

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    i wont do too much about it. however someone may cap you next time they see you eating some pizza, and i would rejoice if i knew your real name

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Really dude? The article deals with an officer in a suburb of San Antonio.

  • Alexander Vucelic


    There are more cops in the Mexican mafia ? Wow

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    You’re skirting the issue. What does your news article link have to do with the two officers who were murdered in Las Vegas?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    That ‘t’ is an imposter.

  • Frank Morris

    Every one of you who signed this garbage neither deserves, nor should you receive, the respect of serious people in the liberty movement.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I know we never see eye to eye but in this case, I’m right up there with you. Thank you for saying my exact thoughts.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    You must get hard over the smell of your own farts…

  • John Q Public

    Sorry, the guy you’re talking about is neither Alyn Beck nor Igor Soldo. Not even the same state. Its still MURDER though. That guy was gunned downed in front of his tattoo parlor. Its still MURDER. It doesn’t matter if he was a cop, gangbanger, or both.

  • John Q Public

    The fact that you’re also a lunatic? Ok, if you say so. Also, thanks for helping to prove my point.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    From what I’ve learned, Eyre, Ademo and their ilk are on the very extreme fringe and are a laughing stock.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    “We aren’t about promoting violence; we’re about educating…”

    Simply said… Bullshit. Eyre and his flock actively promote it in their Facebook posts and on their own web sites. This is simply a ploy in an attempt to cover their asses and pull the wool over people’s eyes.

  • o0THX11380o

    Our movement needs to be centered around peace. Peace is the only way to gain widespread public support and education. It’s the only way to get to where we want this to end… with better laws and more respect for our rights. If copblockers decide to get all violent, even just a couple times then the media will use all the force at their disposal to try and move public opinion against us. It’s a battle but it really can be a peaceful one. It has happened throughout history many times.

  • jimmyt

    Act like a terrorist, get treated like a terrorist

  • John Q Public

    Exactly. That’s why the two “terrorists” who murdered three people took the coward’s way out.

  • Michael Lafond

    Provide the link to the research that shows the crap that you posted. And it has to be from a legit research firm, not some anti-police/government site.

  • The State is Crimainl

    I disagree. I don’t believe that is defensive action. You have to make the assumption that every individual cop will escalate every resistive action until they use deadly force. There are real world examples that disprove that.

    And you also have to apply that same definition of “defensive action” to all individuals; it would follow that any individual would be justified in executing a private gang member or any individual that has stated that they will or has been known to use deadly force against any resistance to their initiatory violence.

    And even if you accept that definition of “defensive action”, since there is no such thing as perfect information, an ethical framework alone cannot sufficiently analyze real world disputes. Third party arbitration is required.

    This whole argument over what constitutes defensive force is why I prefer economic arguments over ethical arguments. I don’t think that what is ethical cannot be determined by “Rothbardian criteria”. Individuals are fallible. In the long run, only markets can seek the answer of these questions.

  • NMcDowell

    Canada, Australia, South Africa, Philippines, Montenegro ext ext ext

  • Joe Markson

    Good cops are those who truly do serve and protect. The over implementation of police officers on our streets, officers who work with a chip on their shoulder and will infringe on your rights before protecting them, officers who speak to the people who work to pay their salaries like second-class citizens, officers who invest most of their time and focus on very minor incidences that involve absolutely no victim and no real crime are all things that need to be addressed and dealt with.

  • t

    RAD: how about personal accountability? See ….that’s the issue here. You guys hate that part. What you think is. “Police aggression….is really us doing a lot of what was hailed as the ‘right solution’ in the article and by many of the CB commenter……We stand in and hold aggressor accountable. When someone steals from you….we apprehend me and hold them accountable.
    The real issue….as always comes back to dope love. The CBers HATE that not everyone embraces and accepts their stance about drugs. Your (so to speak) use of drugs doesn’t just put you at risk or in danger… effects many many more. And again….that’s ok. I just wish everyone would be honest about it.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    See, it can be easy to spot. Especially when it follows.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    The ass is back. My experience has been much different with police, none have been what you claim. Direct experience has some real limitations. It’s why I read. Which is what I do here…and elsewhere.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    So you think in terms of groups and every member of that group is as guilty of what any member does? As Cleaver pointed out, your’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. It’s that police think of themselves as part of a group, tribalism, that leads to the excuses of when cops kill innocent people. You’re just the other side of the same coin.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    No, I disagree with whom I disagree. I don’t hate them.

    As for Weltangschauung, you confuse criticism with intolerance. Tolerance, in this circumstance, doesn’t mean acceptance or embracing, it means allowing it to be expressed and confronting it if I, or you, disagree with it. You obviously do, why can’t I?

    I like the world with all it’s confusing opinions and contradictory beliefs. I learn from them. You might try to be more tolerant of my Weltangschauung, and out-argue it, rather than whine “you hate”.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Ok, that’s better. Yes, I would but I would, like a cop, use a level of force above your level. And unlike a cop, I would likely face economic ruin and/or jail time.

    Cops do do exactly what you ask for. Just not every one of them. A few might join in on the rape, but later.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Put it to the test and get back to me.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    And I missed it.
    This site is just barely moderated. It’s the nature of the site and the ideology (not a justification, just fact). Given that, “It was to prove that this site will do ANYTHING to try and advance its cause – including posting false stories.” is not justified. Incompetence, or poor moderation, isn’t proof of conspiracy.

    However, you willing to do anything…but you are in good company. There was a meaningless paper submitted to a sociology journal that could be considered a “peer-review” journal…I don’t have the link.

  • Yes, the ass is back – and the ass is you.

  • No shit, Sherlock – I loathe pigs, that is obvious – and you are obviously a pig, wannabe pig, or an ex-pig, attempting to defend the Gestapoesque actions of your fellow swine. I find your sycophantic remarks laughable – you have your nose shoved so far up their porcine asses you can smell what they ate for fucking dinner.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Okay, so t. calls me a cop-hater and you call me a cop-lover. Love those extremes, love the people that do those extremes, because they so show why moderation is the best course.

    So, I’ll be a cop-hater for t. and a cop-lover for you. I won’t lose any sleep.

    I really am tired of extremists. You’re not a solution, you’re just the problem. Over and over again. Unrelenting.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Is that all you have? No ability to understand that your experience is only yours? No acknowlegment that we educate to go beyond direct experience?

    I think you can’t really assess who is an ass.

  • Honestly, I don’t really give a good goddamn what you may think of my remarks or me personally, or of what your philosophy of life is or may be; I despise pigs, period.

    You are nobody – so am I.

    You don’t like that – tough shit – I experience schadenfreude every time a pig catches a hot slug in their arrogant, power-mad skull, and dies from their injuries. I wager pigs feel the same way after they annihilate their victims, whether innocent or guilty. Jose Guerena and the innocents slaughtered at Danziger Bridge come to mind.

    Afterward, in a karmic sense, I am forced to endure sickening homilies from the media bleating in unison that Officer Arnold Porcius Ziffel was such a “Christian family man”. leaving behind a widowed cunt wife named Petunia and three fatherless brats, children that he beat on when alive, between whoring on his wife between patrols.

    Who knows, maybe the “souls” of pigs float up to silly Jeebus, if there is such a thing – though if there is – I wager they sink, en masse, into the flaming bowels of hell like a lead balloon filled with xenon, or perhaps even radon or ununoctium.

    Oh well, my diametrical opposition is your problem, you are the pig-loving clown ruminating over my remarks for the past three fucking days – you are beating a dead horse, on a dead thread.

  • Very, very good.

  • I’m a wealthy, older American, and a former Republican, and I celebrate the demise of those pigs.

    Suck on that.

  • Lunacy goes both ways, guy.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    “You are nobody – so am I.” Yet you wasted so much time trying to prove you wrong.

    Schadenfreude is not a virtue.

  • Why would an old fart like me want to become a pig?

  • Because doctors do not INTEND to kill innocents – pigs do.

    Yours in a logical fallacy.

  • I don’t give a fuck what anyone else calls you. Yours is a disguised strawman argument. Those such as you are the problem – fence riding opportunists who have the guts to take sides.

  • Don’t try Plato – you are outclassed, and you don’t know it.

  • In my view – it is.

    Your first sentence is contradictory, and illogical.

    Upset much?

    Can’t refute what I said?

    I like that.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    “That’s why I bothered to reply – entertain me some more if you like – I can keep this going for years.”

    See, there is common ground between us. I can do the same, it’s only about perseverance. Nothing more. This is going to be fun. But for more fun for me…

    Notice I ignored the rest, primarily over this: “Oh well, my intransigent, diametrical opposition of your stance is your
    problem. You are the pig-loving clown ruminating over my remarks for the past three fucking days – an obsessed fool beating a dead horse, on a dead thread…”.

    So let me dissect it. I don’t care that your intransigent, I expect it. Normal behavior in comments. It’s not my problem. Next, I respond by emails, I may ignore them for a day or for a week or longer. I wan’t ruminating over what you wrote whatsoever. I just saw it and now I’m responding. My world isn’t about you, or anyone else here. You, and so many others, just can’t understand that I don’t hang on every word you say. You’re just something on my screen, you’re not more than that. I meet people in the flesh and that makes them real.

    But I do take exception to pig-loving, because I’m obviously a pig-hater. I’ve been told that I am well before you accused me of pig-loving. Take it up with them.

    Is it still a dead thread If you respond?

  • It’s a dead thread due to you and I responding, and no one else.

    So, why are you bothering, if you are a “pig hater”?

    Your words are contradictory; they make no sense.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    So you weren’t calling me a pig-lover? You did elsewhere.

    If it was a straw man, I should get an award for the most disguised straw man across all comments across all blogs since WordPress came into being. I would love your nomination.

    “Those such as you are the problem – fence riding opportunists who have (sic) the guts to take sides.” I just don’t take the side that you do because it isn’t just two sides, pig-haters or pig-lovers. Never has been on any subject. It wasn’t a Constitutional Republic or we stick with Britain.

    I’m not sure you use the word opportunist well, could you elaborate concisely?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I’ve never read Plato, but have read people writing about Plato. Always took it as needing to read Plato, but considered the Empiricists more important. That by how philosophies build on previous arguments, but I am stuck on how living is less than existing.

    So you made what point?

    I do like Shakespeare.

    Edit: so I did allude to Plato? Damn, I didn’t know I had it in me.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    See this is where you go wrong: “I know you don’t care about two police officers killed in cold blood
    along with a citizen who tried to stop two lunatics (who, by the way,
    were followers of your page), but wow”. This post was just the opposite. Why do you do this? What in your thinking makes you do this?

    So some people here in the comments and on posts say stupid things? So therefore it’s everyone? So the post was about embracing killing cops?

    The stupidest thing I read on PoliceOne was how cops were warriors and needed to do war. And the comments were overall “yeah, right on”. So who are they making war on? There’s a lot of stupidity to go around, best you understand that and apply it outside of your comfort zone. I didn’t start out questioning police, in fact I started in 2005 at 51 years of age.

  • John Q Public

    Nice to know. In other words, you’re a sick psychopath.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Which sentence from which comment? This “No, I disagree with whom I disagree. I don’t hate them.” or “You are nobody – so am I.” Yet you wasted so much time trying to prove you wrong.” Hey, you can make claims or you can prove.

    Nope, not upset over you whatsoever. I get upset over t. because I think he’s better than what he does. Otherwise, I only get upset when someone writes something so outrageous that I just can’t let it go. You’re not even close. In fact, you’re just a piker so far. Seen it, responded to it, so what. It’s that Ecclesiastes moment, you just haven’t shown me anything new under the sun. You just aren’t special. What was there to refute?

    I did think it worthwhile to focus on one something you wrote that was pertinent and fun to me. Mostly fun. For me.

  • John Q Public

    How do you know what a doctor’s mindset is? You don’t, just like you don’t know what a cop’s mindset is. You can look up legit stories of doctors INTENTIONALLY killing patients easier than police killings. “Yours” is just ignorance. Keep on drinking the koolade.

  • John Q Public

    Where did I say “everyone?” Oh, that’s right. I didn’t. I guess you didn’t see the copblock facebook post condoning the murder of police officers then. Was I referring to you? Nope. Read the story. Pete and his “decentralized” minions are trying to backpedal after all of the negative facebook comments they received about celebrating murder.

    I can see that you have no clue about the warrior mindset. It doesn’t apply to only the military. The warrior mindset isn’t merely about killing. Its about getting the job done, no matter what the job is. Its better than the pacifist mindset or being a pussy. I’m sure you used the warrior mindset to sell your stuff or you wouldn’t have been a very good salesman at all. Evidently, you just didn’t realize that’s what you were using.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Ever think the entertainment is mutual?

    Yes, let’s do this for years, it gives me sustenance. It does cost others, by why should you or I think about that.

    I await years of pleasure taking your words and shoving them down you throat. If only because you think I’m a “pig-lover”, and that alone assures me that I can take anything you write and shove it down your throat. If you can get t. to agree I’m a pig-lover….

    BTW, I’ve put up with “pig” long enough, but I need your help in coming up with a disparaging label for the group you tribe on (making a new verb). Would that be “groupists”, “tribalists”, or “idiots”. If you don’t like the choices, make a new one but in one word, and, no, “realists” doesn’t make the cut. It assumes too much to make the cut.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Hey, JQP, I’ve been a Judoist (that’s really a sport), an Aikidoist, and a Karateka. I’ve considered kendo, because I really like swords after aikido, and there is a beauty to the movement. I limit myself like any from European culture, I’m too old.

    There’s a time to be a warrior and a time not to be (shades of Ecclesiastes), and when you think of yourself as a warrior against your fellow citizens maybe it’s not that time. What is getting the job done in this Republic?

    Oh, I have a lot of respect for the Japanese notion drawn from shintoism, zen buddhism, and the resulting Bushido, that things should be done well even to perfection. I have no respect for those that misuse it. It is about getting the job done, but it’s just as much about the way. Yeah, I realized I was using the warrior way, but not your way.

    If you want a warrior’s code, it isn’t Bushido with it’s emphasis on servitude and shame, it’s a warrior’s code of doing what is right by that gut and living with it (and Bushido before the militaritists may have liived up to that). You don’t lie, you don’t place blame elsewhere, you put others before yourself always, you are willing to die for others always, and you never hide behind excuses. I could go on but I think I covered the most salient points.

    “The warrior mindset isn’t merely about killing. Its about getting the
    job done, no matter what the job is. Its better than the pacifist
    mindset or being a pussy.” And there in that last sentence you showed you have no fucking understanding of the warrior way. A pacifist who stands against all that can be done to them, even death, is no less a warrior than any asshole that thinks his size and training makes him a warrior, as if, and in fact much more. Becuase they have neither the size or training, but they have will. They are willing to do what they think is right, die for it, and not whine they should have special privilege.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Which comment were you writing to? I mean that honestly, I tried to tie it to one that deserved “so very, very well said” but couldn’t find it. If you meant over warrior, you’re understanding is commensurate with his.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    BTW, when I see an American cop, or their enablers, writing about a warrior code, I want to puke. The warrior code of an American cop is a perversion of what it is to be warrior. Maybe it’s the steroids….

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Umm, do you mean when cops do or when other citizens do? Okay, you meant it across the board for both. Good for you.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Did you take notice? Or did you make excuses as to why they weren’t murders but justified actions by the police? Frankly, I forget but you likely don’t.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    You yourself might use vision and a mirror. It will make you humble.

    Nah, you’ll just think how pretty you are. Mirrors are a metaphor for introspection, a true look at yourself. You’d just see pretty wouldn’t you? Be honest, you’d see someone to fawn over.

  • t

    RAD: Nothing? Mom”fallacy” issues?

  • pink

    there are many on this site threatening to kill LEO’s and their families. why are their posts not taken down?

  • Kevin Lee Reno

    Isn’t it pretty clear that cops don’t initiate force? Cops ARE the force that has been initiated. As far as the NAP is concerned it is a largely arbitrary force. Cops ARE the gun pointed at you, not the ones pointing the gun.
    Okay, so cops are people, too. But it’s pointless to shoot the master of the dog, if the dog will attack, because then there’s nobody to tell the dog when to stop. The dog WILL attack.
    Cops have chosen to be selfless tools of the state. There is no state, the tools belong to nobody, anyone is free to dispose of them as they see fit.
    Disclaimer: This is an exercise in logic, not a threat.

  • Scott Bush

    Ahhh….yes, those other countries that had absolute zero parallel to modern America. I remember all those.

    We should all fight for freedom like those badasses in Free Keane- by belittling meter maids, smoking grass at the county courthouse, and going to jail for minor traffic infractions. If acting like an asshole is the path to freedom, those folks are on their way!

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    just keep recording. maybe you’ll learn something or maybe you’ll get killed by a cop as you beg for mercy. good luck with that path

  • Pingback: Dustin McCaskill's Arrest Shows Value of True Accountability at Cop Block | Cop Block()

  • Ed Hall

    I quit Cop Block after you posted something that denigrated liberals. You should welcome all who oppose the police state, conservatives and liberals alike.

  • Ed Hall

    A post I saw had a great idea – test all cops periodically for STEROIDS.