I ask for your most intelligent discretion in regards to this topic...

[AZRedhawk44]

http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/28/flier-occupy-phoenix-asks-when-should-you-shoot-cop

But I do want to discuss it.


I'm offended by the tone of local talk radio... they present it that it is NEVER APPROPRIATE to shoot local police.

Frankly, my perspective:
1. If you're law-abiding and victim of a wrong-address-no-knock... every cop present at your home deserves a bullet.
2. If police are suppressing 1st amendment rights that have no bearing on projection of force by those expressing 1A rights...protection of 1A rights by any means is acceptable.

While attacks on LEOs should be supported only in the most extreme of circumstances...

"NEVER" is a dangerous word.

"NEVER" was used in regards to the "King's" soldiers in 1775.

An assault on the King's soldiers was held in equal regard to an assault on the King himself.



I'm particularly interested in anyone capable of finding a "primary source" document... a scan or original copy of this flier that is supposedly circulating at the "Occcupy Phoenix" movement.  I can't find one.

[De Selby]

1. If you're law-abiding and victim of a wrong-address-no-knock... every cop present at your home deserves a bullet.
2. If police are suppressing 1st amendment rights that have no bearing on projection of force by those expressing 1A rights...protection of 1A rights by any means is acceptable.

Wait second here - some policeman is on the job, not knowing who you are, and he deserves a bullet because his boss told him to raid a house?

Also, defending 1A rights by shooting people would seem to be a bizarre way of going about  it.  Different kind of right from, oh, the right to life, for exammple.

My  honest opinion - this post is off the deep edge and would be deeply offensive to those members of our forum who are in law enforcement. 

[wmenorr67]

Wait second here - some policeman is on the job, not knowing who you are, and he deserves a bullet because his boss told him to raid a house?

Wait another second here - you are sitting in your house minding your own business and a group of thugs just barge into you home unannounced.  You are just going to sit there and let the?  There are several documented cases of this tatic being used in home invasion robberys.  I know there is no reason for anyone to come into my home unannounced like that.  First one through the door gets a bullet.

[Fly320s]

1.  In the no-knock scenario, I don't think the police deserve a bullet. Deserve is a dangerous word.  The homeowner has the right to defend himself, of course, but that doesn't mean the cops deserve to be shot. People, including cops and judges, make mistakes. They should be held liable for those mistakes and the homeowner should be exempt of arrest.

2.  While I agree that the 2nd amendment is the force behind the 1st amendment, there is a vast gray area between using your voice to object and using your fist to object.  There may be extreme cases, or examples, where violence is the solution, but I think those are few and far between.

[Jamisjockey]

1.  In the no-knock scenario, I don't think the police deserve a bullet. Deserve is a dangerous word.  The homeowner has the right to defend himself, of course, but that doesn't mean the cops deserve to be shot. People, including cops and judges, make mistakes. They should be held liable for those mistakes and the homeowner should be exempt of arrest.

2.  While I agree that the 2nd amendment is the force behind the 1st amendment, there is a vast gray area between using your voice to object and using your fist to object.  There may be extreme cases, or examples, where violence is the solution, but I think those are few and far between.

QFT.

[HankB]

There have been a couple of stories of late on various forums of crooked cops breaking into people's homes for purposes of robbery - it's hard to see how these individuals (note, I said individuals) merit special consideration because they happen to wear a badge during their day jobs.

Then, I recall seeing video during the L.A. riots in which some officers appeared to be working as the security detail for swarms of looters - do they deserve the respect that normal peace officers are afforded?

And then there was the disturbing footage out of NOLA after Katrina of law enforcement offcers involved in warrantless home invasions, theft of personal property, assaults on senior citizens, etc., not to mention videos of uniformed cops walking out of department stores with armloads of merchandise . . .

'nuff said.

[Jamisjockey]

There have been a couple of stories of late on various forums of crooked cops breaking into people's homes for purposes of robbery - it's hard to see how these individuals (note, I said individuals) merit special consideration because they happen to wear a badge during their day jobs.

Then, I recall seeing video during the L.A. riots in which some officers appeared to be working as the security detail for swarms of looters - do they deserve the respect that normal peace officers are afforded?

And then there was the disturbing footage out of NOLA after Katrina of law enforcement offcers involved in warrantless home invasions, theft of personal property, assaults on senior citizens, etc., not to mention videos of uniformed cops walking out of department stores with armloads of merchandise . . .

'nuff said.

In certain areas, the police resemble organized crime more than law enforcement. 

In most areas, it is individual officers and not the departments as a whole, who are criminals.  Every job, every group has the bad apples. 

[zxcvbob]

The Supreme Court was OK with it in the John Bad Elk v. U.S. decision.  

[Fly320s]

There have been a couple of stories of late on various forums of crooked cops breaking into people's homes for purposes of robbery - it's hard to see how these individuals (note, I said individuals) merit special consideration because they happen to wear a badge during their day jobs.

Then, I recall seeing video during the L.A. riots in which some officers appeared to be working as the security detail for swarms of looters - do they deserve the respect that normal peace officers are afforded?

And then there was the disturbing footage out of NOLA after Katrina of law enforcement offcers involved in warrantless home invasions, theft of personal property, assaults on senior citizens, etc., not to mention videos of uniformed cops walking out of department stores with armloads of merchandise . . .

'nuff said.

Police should be held to a higher standard, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be shot every time they screw up.

[wmenorr67]

Police should be held to a higher standard, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be shot every time they screw up.

No knock warrants on the wrong house is one sure way for that to happen though.

[MicroBalrog]

The difficulty is this. Working as a police officer today includes doing many things that a person with vaguely libertarian views regards as outright immoral. No-knock searches are just the tip of the disgusting iceberg. On the other hand, police are also first responders. They are people who run towards the gunshots. (At least in theory).

What these people are advocating is by no means unamerican – it is also the same thing pointed out by various conservative, libertarian and anarcho-capitalist authors – that our political situation is in a stage where armed rebellion might soon become justifiable, and it would then be fine to shoot at certain law enforcement agents. A lot of authors toy with this idea, deliberately coming as close as they can to saying shoot the cops now without saying it on purpose.

I don't personally have a respect for law enforcement (which is not the same as saying I have no respect for the concept of law). This does not mean I think we should commence methodically shooting them. I just personally don't respect them, would prefer not to hang out with them, have them as my dinner guests, etc. This is my right.

I also believe – as anybody in his right mind does – that if you are a member of a violent attack otherwise unprovoked – you have the moral right to resist violently. More to the point, people will resist violently. If you take it as your career to burst into people's homes unannounced, throw flashbangs and point guns at people, there is a certain risk of being shot. Such is life. And I believe that the people who might shoot you should be acquitted – whether or not you are a police officer, a crook, or Buddha himself.

What these OWS people doing is stupid as misguided. This specific stupid, as I mentioned, is not a particularly left-wing stupid – it has been attempted before by members of the right as well (surely you've seen posts of this nature on pro-gun forums!) - is comprised of people who are all (REASONABLY!) afraid to actually start a civil war first, and are all standing around trying to poke at their friends and neighbors trying to persuade THEM to go first (rather foolishly).

There's always the chance that if you decide to start a civil war you'll go down in history as that guy who went crazy one day, shot two EPA administrator and got put down by a SWAT team, and either discredited his cause or got forgotten by the news cycle in five minutes. Nobody wants to be that guy. Everybody wants to be Camille Desmoulins.

There are of course great moral reasons why we shouldn't start a civil war – because there are peaceful alternatives, and because it wouldn't work and would only damage our cause when it fails (applying to virtually any cause, really).

These people are  stupid, but their stupid is not unique to them in this context.

[MechAg94]

There's always the chance that if you decide to start a civil war you'll go down in history as that guy who went crazy one day, shot two EPA administrator and got put down by a SWAT team, and either discredited his cause or got forgotten by the news cycle in five minutes. Nobody wants to be that guy.

I think this is key when discussing this sort of thing.  You need to be careful not to get wound up in your own perspective and self righteous anger. 



On the other side of this, do we actually say that criminals deserve to be shot?  In many cases yes, but not all.  Any normally law abiding citizen might fall into mine or your definition of "needs to be shot" depending on what they do, but it is difficult to put a finger on when that is.  I don't think police officers should be treated any differently, but we should be careful not to treat them more harshly either.

[Tallpine]

When they're coming to haul you away to the "gulag" 

[makattak]

The only time it is justifiable is when the police are breaking the law (that includes the natural law) AND putting you or your family in danger- the same reasons it is morally justifiable to shoot anyone else.

As for the pamphlet, pretty clearly these people are dangerous loons. A DUI checkpoint is not a cause for shooting a police officer.

[French G.]

When they're coming to haul you away to the "gulag" 

And that's what makes it a valid question. Many different groups in the last century waited too long, went along, did what the established authority told them to do. By the time it was realized resistance was needed, it was too late.

Better to try to corrupt the police from within. Elect honest men for sheriff in your area, maintain dialogue with any cop with a brain, try to invite some into your shooting club or 2A organization, expose bad cops and create social uproar until they are replaced. That was the one thing that always annoyed me about THR/TFL, there were no bad cops, we had to defend them all. Legislatively, we should push to de-unionize all police.

[wmenorr67]

Someone brought up Civil War earlier.  Which side will the military be on?

[AZRedhawk44]

OK, I'm not completely alone in my perspective.  Or as far off as I initially thought.



The talk radio Statist shill that brought this up on Friday presented the issue in context that it is NEVER okay to shoot a police officer.  Period.  End of sentence.  I really wanted to call and get into an argument with him on the air, but I was in the middle of a bunch of other things to do on Friday.

[longeyes]

The question is always in what service is authority and force being deployed--to defend civil liberties or to suppress them.

[AZRedhawk44]

I found the original pamphlet.

http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/3359/10/3359_1319803260.pdf

I agree with about 97% of it.


Reposting here, for the following reasons:
1.  It's hosted at ClearChannel's website and likely to become a broken link at some point in the future.
2.  I assume it's public domain since no author is attributed to it, no statement of copyright, and it was a freely distributed pamphlet at the Occupy Phoenix movement.
3.  It's not terribly offensive agit-prop and conforms with a lot of the dialogue we are having anyways.

When Should You Shoot A Cop?

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions.
The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly
resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has
been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case
shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft,
and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite
of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by
the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history.
Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they
stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind,
the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement
may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a
lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard
time viewing their OWN “country”, their OWN “government”, and their OWN “law enforcers”, in any sort of
objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they
live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly
resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And
humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian
indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face
of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP
it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the
system”-the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the
system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally”
resist-that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone
who resists “legal” justice is automatically labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for
freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally” – i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

If politician think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as
long as it’s called “law”, they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of
the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When
tyrants define what counts as “law”, then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has
become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at
airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything
else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply
that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being
resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your
home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a
cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two
options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in
more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you
have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists
to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which
declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him.
Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the
law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the
logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth
Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands
of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The messages from the ruling class is
quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without
probable cause ... but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want,
but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the
attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and
illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Dividians
about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and
call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right” –what does the term “right” even
mean- if you have an obligation to allow the jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It make the term
absolutely meaningless.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if
he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use whatever amount of force
is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable
right to speak you mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who
try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government”
agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures,
then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the
alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice – even if the injustice is called the “law” – that
logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want
to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of
the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress
you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s
health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary
and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which
is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due
in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The
correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-
breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very
real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good
guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

It's not nearly as sensational as the Statist shill wanted to make it.

[AZRedhawk44]

Also, in the finest tradition of APS thread veer, that PDF hosted on clear channel's site was a beeyatch to figure out how to copy/paste from it.

Whomever typed it up or scanned it at CC, put a copy-prohibit protection on the PDF file.  I tried several different PDF readers for Windows and none of them would ignore the flag.  Finally fired up my Linux box and used "Document Viewer" that ships with Ubuntu.  That let me copy the text and post it here.

Shame on you, Clear Channel, for deliberately making it hard for electronic versions of this document to be shared.  I'm happy that Document Viewer doesn't give a rat's posterior about your attempt to single-source this document.

[MechAg94]

It seems to me that the title is the most provocative thing to it after reading a couple bits and pieces.  The title almost assumes a foregone conclusion that there is a normal time to shoot a cop. 

[dogmush]

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand

At the risk of broad brush strokes, when the police and the courts have turned to tyranny (real tyranny, not the tyranny of required permits and laws you don't like) then it's time to kill them.  As long as the courts exist and work, and whatever the LEO is doing wrong won't kill you or another, I think you have the obligation to seek justice within the courts, rather then dispense it at the barrel of a gun.

[Scout26]

<---Former MP

Police should be held to a higher standard, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be shot every time they screw up.

True, but if you going to do a "dynamic entry" then you better have made damn sure you got it right.    And I saw a firefighter tell a cop "If you come to take away my 2A rights and firearms, you'll get .308 rounds through your windshield as you pull in my driveway."

LEO's have to remember that the US Constitution comes first.  I don't give one good G_d Damn what your bosses ordered you to do.  The "I vass only followink Or-ders." defense died at Nuremburg.  You have to interpret those orders and determine whether they were lawful or not.

[zxcvbob]

<---Former MP

True, but if you going to do a "dynamic entry" then you better have made damn sure you got it right.    And I saw a firefighter tell a cop "If you come to take away my 2A rights and firearms, you'll get .308 rounds through your windshield as you pull in my driveway."

LEO's have to remember that the US Constitution comes first.  I don't give one good G_d Damn what your bosses ordered you to do.  The "I vass only followink Or-ders." defense died at Nuremburg.  You have to interpret those orders and determine whether they were lawful or not.

The problem is, you don't know you are justified in repelling them until it is way too late to do so.

[Blakenzy]

It is obvious that in the view of a growing number of ordinary citizens, law enforcement legitimacy has all but disappeared, and is hanging on nothing but the threat and use of violence by its agents.

When a police force does ANYTHING more than guard people from physical aggression, and [physical] property from deliberate damage or theft, they cross the line from Protecting to Controlling. These two separate functions lead down very different paths, one of which is irreconcilable with Freedom.

The publication in question is not as extreme as it's made out to be. It only coaxes the reader to change their mental view of LEOs. They are not holy champions of justice, incorruptible, untouchable and unquestionable. They are merely men. Men in uniform (some would argue costumes) with jobs that require they initiate aggression and use force to impose the will of others unto you.. Men who as of late seem to follow pretty much any command that comes from the ruling elite. Men you may someday be forced to resist if you desire to protect certain rights and freedoms. That's just common sense.