Tag Archives: Police officer

Detroit SWAT team assaults African American mom

WHO

Detroit SWAT team assaults African American mom who refused to medicate her daughter with antipsychotic drugs

Friday, April 15, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The medical police state is alive and well in Detroit today, whereChild Protective Services(CPS) called in the police to aid in their kidnapping of a 13-year-old daughter from an African American mother who refused to medicate her with dangerous psychiatric drugs. As this case is clearly showing, refusing to medicate your children with Big Pharma‘s mind-altering drugs is now being treated as a felony crime.

Here are the facts of the case:

• Maryanne Godboldo is an African American mother of a teenager daughter. She lives in Detroit. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/swat-at…)

• Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel attempted to kidnap Maryanne’s 13-year-old daughter. They accused her of not giving her childpsychiatric medicationprescribed by her doctor.

• Maryanne says the medication causedside effectsin her daughter and made her condition worse, which is why she refused to give her daughter the medication.

• The medication wasRisperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication known for causing serious side effects such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness and lack of coordination (http://www.risperdalsideeffects.com).

Watch the true video of the shocking side effects of Risperdal here:http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=3…

See a complete list of side effects of psychiatric medications from CCHR:
http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/f…

• When Maryanne refused to let CPS take her daughter away, CPS personnel then called the police, who then smashed down her front door and attempted to raid her home to kidnap her daughter by force.

• The police did NOT have a warrant or any court documents whatsoever granting them any right to enter Maryanne’s home, according to Godboldo’s attorneys.

• Police say that after they smashed in the front door, Maryanne opened fire on them. (Who wouldn’t open fire on a group of armed assailants trying to kidnap their daughter, by the way?)

• A SWAT team was then called in, carrying semiautomatic rifles and sniper gear. A 12-hour standoff ensued.

• Maryanne eventually surrendered to the SWAT team, and the state took her daughter to a psychiatric hospital where she is now being molested by the staff there, her mother says.

• Maryanne Godboldo now faces multiple felony charges: firing a weapon in a dwelling, felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

• CPS lied about the child’s father’s ability to take care of her as a tactic to kidnap her from her mother.

• Community groups in Detroit are now rallying on behalf of the family there, shouting “Free Arianna” (the daughter).

Why Health Freedom is more important now than ever

What you are witnessing here with Maryanne Godboldo isthe tyranny of the medical police stateand the wicked criminality of Child Protective Services workers who are now front-line enforcers of Big Pharma’s deadly agenda to drug our children.

Make no mistake: What’s happening today is thatthe state is now breaking down the doors, assaulting, arresting and imprisoning parents who refuse to medicate their children. This is being accomplished with the use of armed force against innocent victims.

This unholy alliance between Big Pharma, CPS and the police has gone too far. It has becomethe weapon of medication compliance.

When medicine has become so dangerous, so forceful and so utterly harmful to the People that the state must use bullets and guns to force people to take it,you know it’s all gone way too far.

It makes you wonder: What kind of system of medicine is so bad that prescriptions have to beenforced at gunpoint?

That this is happening is not just an assault on Maryann Godboldo, butan assault on our rights and freedoms as sovereign human beings. Do we not have the right to say NO to a medication we don’t want our children to take? Do we not have the right to protect our children from kidnappers? Do we not have the right to use firearms in the defense and protection of our homes from armed invaders who are conspiring to kidnap our children?

The real criminals in this case are the CPS workers. They should be brought up on attempting kidnapping charges as well as a criminal conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The gun-toting cops who broke into Maryanne’s home and attempted to kidnap her daughter should be arrested and brought up on charges ofarmed robbery, breaking and entering and conspiracyto commit the felony crime of kidnapping.

And yet, instead, Maryanne is now facing multiple felony charges while the CPS criminals and cops who raided her home are charged with nothing.

Where is the justice in America today?How did medication become something to be enforced with bullets and SWAT teams? And more importantly,how far will this gobefore this tyranny ends?

Next, will they just line everybody up against a brick wall, and those who can’t produce a receipt for medication get a bullet in their heads?

Resistance is necessary to achieve freedom

I hope you see where this is headed. I’ve been warning you about this for years, urging you to resist the rise of the medical police state… warning you about what I called “gunpoint medicine” back in 2006 (http://www.naturalnews.com/019512.html).

Read about Daniel Hauser (http://www.naturalnews.com/026305.html), the gunpoint vaccinations in Maryland (http://www.naturalnews.com/022267.html), the jailing of Francisco Santos (http://www.naturalnews.com/021997.html) and the forced poisoning of Abraham Cherrix (http://www.naturalnews.com/019617.html) with toxic chemotherapy.

Learn the truth or you will surely be crushed by it. Big Pharma will stop at nothing to force their drugs onto your children. They will use guns, SWAT teams, kidnapping, the breaking down of your front door… anything it takes!

If you really want to learn the truth about the psychiatric industry and itswar on children, visitwww.CCHR.organdwww.CCHRint.org

You can also search the database of psychiatricdrug side effectsat:http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdan…

And please, forward this article to everyone you know. Spread the word about reading NaturalNews.com to stay informed about health freedom. We must protect ourselves from thesemedication tyrantswho use kidnapping, armed assaults and the threat of violence to force us to drug our children.

Subscribe to NaturalNews.com to stay informed each day with my email newsletter alerts: http://naturalnews.com/readerregist…

Articles Related to This Article:

• A Real Reason to Boycott Whole Foods?

• The ADHD Scam and the Mass Drugging of Schoolchildren (Transcript)

• Where’s the health in health care reform?

• The Mothers Act Disease Mongering Campaign – Part V

• Why I’m thankful for Whole Foods Market stores

• WHO scandal exposed: Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers

Advertisements

The Horrific Life of the Police Officer

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html

by Mark R. Crovelli

Recently by Mark R. Crovelli: The Trouble With Rick Santelli

 

Few people in the world seem to appreciate just how awful it is to be a government police officer. It’s not that the job involves particularly physically demanding work, or that the job is particularly dangerous. In fact, the work is not nearly physically demanding enough (as the cop fatness problem demonstrates), and neither is it particularly dangerous (being a cop doesn’t even make the top ten most dangerous jobs). Nor is the job terrible because of the unstated obligation to wear a tawdry mustache in public. Instead, what makes the job so horrific is the fact that it requires living a completely contradictory moral life.

Unlike normal human beings, whose jobs require adherence to the same moral standards that apply in their private lives, police officers are required to act in ways they would never even consider in their private lives. For forty hours a week (or more, if they are trying to milk their departments’ overtime rackets), police officers are required to forget the moral standards that govern their private interactions with their own friends, families and neighbors and adopt the moral outlook of the sociopath and the gangster.

Specifically, the job of the police officer involves giving orders to strangers and locking them up in cages if they choose not to obey. Unless the police officer is a complete sociopath, he would never consider acting in such a way in his private life. With his blue polyester in the closet, for example, the off-duty police officer would never consider putting his grandpa in a cage if he refuses to obey orders. He would never consider electrocuting his children or his grandmother for refusing to do what he tells them. He would never consider beating up his neighbor if she refused to stop her car and show a picture of herself embossed on government plastic. But he is expected to do precisely these types of things to people he doesn’t even know in his “professional” life if they refuse to do what he and his bosses tell them.

The fact that many, many police officers are indeed complete psychopaths should thus not come as a particular surprise. Indeed, the job is tailor made for the psychopath and the sociopath who is comfortable with feelings of cognitive dissonance. People with normally calibrated moral compasses would shudder to think that they would be required to lock people up in cages, electrocute them, or beat them with clubs for not doing as they are told. It would confuse and trouble the normal person to think that by putting on a blue polyester suit, mustache, and riding boots it was suddenly morally acceptable to order people around at the point of a gun (not to mention the icy shudder they would feel at the thought of wearing the ridiculous kit itself). It would horrify the normal person to think that part of his job involved smashing down strange people’s doors, taking their children, shackling them, locking them in cages, stealing their drugs and guns, and shooting them if they happen to resist.

The man with a normally calibrated moral compass is equally disturbed to contemplate that the purported justification for acting in these barbaric ways was that politicians, of all people, told them to. It is not as though God Himself or the Pope gives the police officer sanction to lock people in cages and to order them about. Quite the reverse, the sanction comes from people of such sterling moral character as the coke-snorting drunk driver, Bush II, and the drug-cartel-connected perjurer, Clinton I. The sociopath and the psychopath are not troubled by the fact that their only justification for ordering strange people around is that a pack of corrupt millionaires in Washington or Denver told them to, which is what makes such people sociopaths and psychopaths in the first place. The normal person, in contrast, is not willing to do things to other people that they clearly resent or despise, or to order them to do things they oppose, just because a politician says so.

The person with a normally calibrated moral compass would begin to wonder why the moral standards that govern his private life with friends and family, and which produce relative peace and harmony in that sphere of his life, do not apply to all situations. Why, the normal person will inevitably wonder, is there any peace in his family, when no one wears a special blue suit or has the right to order everyone around and shackle resisters? How is it possible that he can get along with his friends at the bowling alley, when none of them is assigned to break into cars to search for substances the politicians dislike, and none of them has a right to steal anyone else’s children? In short, the normal person will begin to wonder why the people who claim to “protect us” are not held to the same moral standards as everyone else.

The answer to these questions is simple, even if the person with a normally calibrated moral compass often cannot see it through the clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the normal person feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to.

The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers.

The key to liberating the police officer from the contradictory and perverted moral life he currently leads is simply to privatize the provision of defense services. Freed from the need to push arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on strange people, the police officer would then be a moral equal to everyone else in the world who was striving to make money by serving consumers. He would also, one hopes, be liberated from the requirement to wear the most ridiculous bureaucratic costume ever devised by man.

March 24, 2011

Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Mark R. Crovelli


‘Don’t Resist’: The Refrain of Rapists, Police, and Other Degenerates

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w195.html

by William Norman Grigg

Recently by William Norman Grigg: Saviors in Uniform?

 

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothes and wounded him….

Now by chance three men – a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan – came down that same road, and, seeing the man being beaten, joined in on the side of the assailants, for they were emissaries of the divine State.

~ The Parable of the Statist Samaritan (offered with the sincerest apologies to the Author of the genuine article).

 

Three times each week, 36-year-old Keith Briscoe of Winslow Township, New Jersey would begin his day by going to a nearby Wawa convenience store for soda and cigarettes. Briscoe, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and lived with his parents, went to the local Steininger Behavior Services clinic for treatment, and he would have a smoke outside the store while waiting for the office to open.

As far as anyone in the neighborhood could recall, Briscoe had never bothered anybody. He wasn’t causing trouble on the morning of May 3, 2010, when he had the lethal misfortune of attracting the attention of Winslow Township Police Officer Sean Richards. When Richards demanded to know who he was and what he was doing, Briscoe was cooperative, telling the officer – who had no business bothering one of his betters anyway – that he was waiting to go to the clinic.

“Patients often go up to the Wawa before their sessions to buy coffee [or] cigarettes,” a medical professional who worked at the clinic informs Pro Libertate. “The local businesses and police are aware that there are psychiatric patients in the area and know to call Steininger in the event that one of them gets lost or is getting into trouble. This cop took it upon himself to do what he did without asking anyone in Wawa if there was any problem. Wawa hadn’t called the police to intervene because Mr. Briscoe would frequently go there.”

Richards should have left well enough alone, but since he had a gun, a piece of government-provided jewelry, and an unearned sense of superiority, he didn’t. He demanded that Briscoe get into his police cruiser, supposedly to be given a ride to the clinic. Briscoe wisely turned down the offer.

Richards later admitted that he hadn’t received any complaints about Briscoe’s behavior, and that he did nothing that warranted an arrest. According to the former clinic staffer, Briscoe was known to be “very kind and gentle [and] would never be aggressive.” Yet when the harmless and intimidated man refused to get into the police car, Richards committed an act of criminal assault by seizing and attempting to handcuff him.

As Briscoe tried to escape, Richards called for “backup.” He also attacked Briscoe with his Oleoresin Casicum spray, a “non-lethal” chemical weapon that left the victim choking and struggling for breath.

At this point, three bystanders saw Briscoe struggling with a uniformed assailant, a situation that presented them with the “Tom Joad Test,” which I’ve previously described thus:

“When you see a cop – or, more likely, several of them – beating up on a prone individual, do you instinctively sympathize with the assailant(s) or the victim? Do you assume that the state is entitled to the benefit of the doubt whenever its agents inflict violence on somebody, or do you believe that the individual – any individual – is innocent of wrongdoing until his guilt has been proven?”

The bystanders failed the test. Rather than intervening on behalf of the victim, or simply butting out, these statist Samaritans reflexively gave the uniformed assailant the benefit of the doubt, and joined in the beating. Five more armed tax-feeders, summoned by Richards’s frantic call for “backup,” then arrived to pile on. A few minutes later, Briscoe was dead as a result of “traumatic asphyxia” – that is, he suffocated at the bottom of a thugscrum. The Camden County Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. But the chief assailant was not charged with a homicide-related offense.

According to the Camden County prosecutor’s office, although Richards had committed an illegal arrest, he couldn’t be prosecuted for homicide because New Jersey “law” doesn’t recognize the unalienable right of innocent people to resist unlawful arrest. This supposedly means that once Briscoe “resisted being taken into custody, police had the right to take actions necessary to restrain him” – up to and including the use of lethal force.

What this means is that in New Jersey – a state afflicted with some of the most corrupt and abusive police officers this side of Tahrir Square – someone who survives a murder attempt by a uniformed thug can be prosecuted for “resisting arrest” even if it is proven that the police assault was a criminal act.

In fact, according to one recent ruling from the state Superior Court (State of New Jersey v. Craig Byron Joseph Martin), it is a crime to resist even when a police offer specifically and repeatedly states that the subject is not under arrest. The police officer in that case testified: “I said, `Sir, you’re not under arrest. I’m just patting you down for my safety.”

The subject was instructed to place his hands on his car. When he removed his hands from the vehicle, the officer told him, “I’m going to handcuff you. You’re not under arrest.” Eventually the incident degenerated into a “scuffle,” in which the officer – once again, by his own account – exclaimed: “You’re not under arrest; stop resisting arrest!”

Ah, yes: “Stop resisting” – the refrain of rapists, police, and other violent degenerates.

Richards, who murdered Briscoe for the supposed crime of resisting an illegal arrest, was charged with simple assault and as a result was sentenced to a year on probation and the loss of his job. He also agreed that he would never seek to expunge his record, although it’s not clear how that provision could be enforced.

“This plea ensures that Richards will be forever barred from holding such a position of authority again,” insisted Camden County Prosecutor Warren W. Faulk. Actually, it’s entirely possible that Richards will join the ranks of corrupt, disgraced“gypsy cops” who invariably find employment elsewhere as members of the coercive caste.

None of the other four police officers who collaborated in the crime has been punished at all. However, all five officers, along with the “Samaritans” who collaborated in the murder of Keith Briscoe, are the subjects of a $25 million civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the victim’s family.

Legal commentator Elie Mystal points out that the “Good Samaritans” in this matter had no reason – apart from a “reflexive trust of police” – to assume that Sean Richards was justified in using force to subdue Briscoe. “They chose the wrong side, and now a man is dead,” Mystal observes. “There should be some kind of punishment for that.”

“And don’t tell me that holding these people accountable will have some kind of ‘chilling effect’ on the willingness of citizens to help their fellow man,” Mystal continues. “This is America! We are founded on a skepticism of authority. We believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It’s entirely consistent with the American experience … [not to assume] that police officers are always right or on the side of good.”

The Mundanes who joined in the assault will most likely end up ruined financially. The same is true of Sean Richards, now that he’s no longer wearing the habiliments of the State’s punitive priesthood. But the others still employed as agents of coercion will probably be spared similar hardship through a settlement worked out in collaboration with the local armed tax-feeders’ union.

And still, somehow we’re supposed to believe that the take-away here is that the lawsuit poses a new threat to “officer safety,” because it will discourage Mundanes from coming to the aid of police next time they assault a helpless individual.

“They saw a cop struggling and they jumped into action,” says Tim Quinlan, the attorney representing Sean Richards, of the Mundanes who helped murder Keith Briscoe. “Now you’re going to have cops getting killed because people are afraid to get involved.”

Somehow that unlikely prospect fails to send a chill down my spine, or leave me prostrate with inconsolable grief.

New Jersey cops appear to specialize in unprovoked assaults on harmless people who suffer from mental illness.

On May 29, 2009, Ronnie Holloway was standing on a street corner near a restaurant when Officers Joseph Rios III and Erica Rivera pulled up in a cop car and berated the 49-year-old man for having his jacket unzipped. As is usually the case in such encounters, things went dramatically downhill in a hurry.

Rios, an Iraq combat veteran, appeared to be on “contact patrol” – that is, prowling the neighborhood looking for an excuse to throw somebody to the ground. Holloway, an unassuming man on medication for schizophrenia, presented a perfect target of opportunity.

A video recording of the event shows Holloway meekly zipping up his jacket. As he did so, Rivera exits the vehicle and distracts Holloway while Rios blind-sides him, slamming him to the ground and beating him repeatedly with his fists and baton. After a brief pause, Holloway – who is clearly terrified, but not putting up any physical resistance – is able to rise to his feet before being slammed onto the hood of the police car.

“I didn’t know if I was going to see tomorrow at that point,” Holloway later said of the assault, which left him battered and bloody and with a serious injury to one of his eyes.

The beating continued until backup – in the form of two additional police cars – arrived to help drag Holloway off to jail.

Despite the fact that he had behaved like a properly docile Mundane, absorbing an unprovoked beating without making any effort to flee or fight back, Holloway was charged with resisting arrest and “wandering,” supposedly in search of narcotics.

`

`

In filing their official report of the incident, Rios and his partner did what police in such circumstances always do: They committed perjury in the form of “creative writing.” Rios claimed that when he and Rivera told Holloway to leave the corner, Holloway “verbally challenged” them. “Step on the sidewalk, you’ll see,” Holloway supposedly said to Rios, assuming a “fighting stance” as he did so.

Rios had no right or authority to demand that Holloway – who had done nothing to anybody – leave the street corner. It’s also clear from the video that the beating began before Holloway would have had an opportunity to fling a verbal “challenge” at Rios. Some measure of Rios’s reliability as a witness is found in the fact that his Use of Force Report claims that Holloway wasn’t injured in the attack.

After the May 29 assault was publicized, the Passaic Police Department “pulled a Mubarak,” as it were: They defied public outrage for as long as possible, keeping Rios on active duty, and then suspending both Rios and Rivera (the latter for failing a fraudulent claim of a job-related injury during the incident) when the outrage failed to dissipate.

`

`

Owing entirely to public pressure put on the Passaic municipal government, Rios has been charged with aggravated assault and official misconduct. He has entered a plea of “not guilty by virtue of a government-provided wardrobe.”

“I did what was proper,” lied Rios in a June 2009 press conference. “I did what I was trained to do under circumstances that existed at that time. I stand by my actions.”

His attorney, Anthony J. Iacullo, defended the assault as a pre-emptive strike against some unspecified threat posed by an uppity Mundane: “Based upon what Officer Rios feared might happen, and based upon his not submitting to arrest, the actions were taken.”

Holloway’s “resistance” consisted of cringing and covering up in confusion and terror as Rios rained down punches and baton strikes. In New Jersey – as is the case elsewhere in the Soyuz – even such minimal and reflexive attempts to protect one’s self from State-sanctified violence is treated as a criminal offense.

February 16, 2011

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Copyright © 2011 William Norman Grigg

The Best of William Norman Grigg

`


Police State Isn’t Coming. It Is Here Now!


My Photo

William N. Grigg
Payette, Idaho, United States
Christian Individualist, husband, father, self-appointed pundit.

View complete profile

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2010

 

“We’re Fighting A War”: Civilian Disarmament and the Martial Law Mindset

Bonfire of the liberties: Chinese police incinerate "illegal" guns.

Denver resident Shawn Miller is accused of several acts of criminal violence. On one occasion, he and an associate beat a pedestrian, leaving the man with a broken knee and a permanent physical disability. In a second assault, Miller and another buddy beat a disabled Iraq war veteran so severely –using both fists and clubs — that he briefly “flat-lined” as EMTs treated him

The facts in those cases are not disputed, yet Miller has not been charged with a crime. However, he is being sued by Jason Anthony Graber, one of his victims. In light of Miller’s documented history of criminal violence, the plaintiff’s attorney has demanded that the assailant not be permitted to bring a firearm while being deposed.

Miller protests that this is an unconscionable act of “oppression.” With the aid of the Denver City Attorney, Miller — an Officer with the Denver Police Department — has filed a petition with the U.S. District Court seeking a “protective order” allowing him to be armed during the depositions.

The Department’s Operation Manual requires that officers be “armed at all times” — a provision that poses some interesting challenges for officers who choose to bathe, assuming that there are any who do. “Requiring a uniformed or non-uniformed police officer to disarm when he is compelled to give a deposition at an attorney’s office, or at any other unsecured location, presents a significant officer safety issue,” whines an affidavit provided by Lt. Dikran Kushdilian of the Denver PD.

Attorney David Lane, who is representing Graber, quite sensibly insists that some precautions must be taken in deposing people who are “defendants because they have acted illegally and violently toward others in the past.” 

The Denver Police Department has a well-earned reputation for brutality and corruption, and Lane has deposed more than a few abusive cops, and those proceedings “can get very contentious. When I’m cross-examining cops about their misconduct, past and present, they get angry, and I don’t wish to depose angry people who have a long history of violent behavior while they’re wearing a gun strapped to their waist.”

Lane demands that the deposition take place in a setting in which neither side is armed. Denver’s municipal government demands that the examination should take place at the federal Courthouse, where Miller and other officers in similar cases “would surrender their weapons to the custody of the U.S. Marshall [sic], and would be unarmed during the deposition.” 

In other words, it’s not quite the case that Denver officers have to be “armed at all times”; the critical issue is the preservation of the government’s monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force in all circumstances. Lane should counter Denver’s demand by offering to permit Miller to carry his firearm to the deposition, while specifying that he and his associates would also be armed. The official response to that counter-proposal would be instructive.

Leading lambs to the slaughter: "Toy Gun Bash."


While Lane most likely wouldn’t choose that approach, he is sensible enough to recognize that the State’s agents of armed coercion are the most dangerous element in society, and prudent enough to act on that understanding.

Owing to the tireless efforts of the organs of official indoctrination, a large portion of the public assumes that the opposite is true, and as a result can be easily convinced that only those commissioned to commit violence on behalf of government can be entrusted with the means to do so.

A splendid example of this deadly agitprop is offered by the “Toy Gun Bash,” which was first inflicted on Providence, Rhode Island seven years ago by the criminal clique running the municipal government.

`
Each year around Christmastime, children living in Providence are compelled to line up and feed their toy guns into the maw of the “Bash-O-Matic,” a device described by theBoston Globe as “a large, black, foam creature with churning metal teeth and the shape of a cockroach spliced with a frog.” In exchange for feeding their toy guns into this recombinant monstrosity, each child is given a substitute toy that is deemed to be suitably “non-violent.” They are also forced to endure a harangue regarding “the dangers of playing with guns, real or fake.”

Maintaining the monopoly: Burning confiscated guns.


The Providence event, continues the Globe, is “a version of the gun buyback program in which adults trade firearms for gift certificates.”

In fact, gun “buyback” programs are a form of what Dr. Edward J. Laurance of the UN’s Register of Conventional Arms calls “micro-disarmament” — or, more to the point, civiliandisarmament.

The expression “buyback” assumes that government has a monopoly on the use of force, and that only duly authorized agents of officially sanctioned violence should be permitted to own guns and other weapons — and thus the State is taking back from Mundanes a privilege to which they’re not entitled.

Gun “buyback” and turn-in programs are a common feature of military occupations, both here and abroad. U.S. military personnel in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan have employed that tactic (as David Kramer notes, this helps the occupiers to acquire a useful hoard of “drop guns” that can be used to frame innocent people  as “terrorists” or “insurgents”). The same approach was used to disarm American Indians as they were cattle-penned on reservations.

Over the past decade, UN-aligned activists in several countries have staged events in which guns confiscated from civilians have been destroyed, a ritual sometimes called the “Bonfire of the Liberties.” This is in keeping with UN-promoted dogma (expressed most forcefully in its 2000 agitprop film Armed to the Teeth) that the only “legal” weapons are those “used by armies and police forces to protect us,” and that civilian ownership of firearms is “illegitimate.”

The UN’s campaign for civilian disarmament — which, just like matters of national disarmament, is assigned to the world body’s Office for Disarmament Affairs — was inaugurated in 2000 as part of the “human security” agenda promoted by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. In late 1993 and early 1994, Annan — who at the time was head of the world body’s “peacekeeping” operations — presided over the disarmament, and subsequent annihilation, of roughly 1.1 million Rwandans.

Annan was actually an accessory before the fact to that genocide: Informed in early 1994 of the impending slaughter by Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian officer commanding UN peacekeeping troops, Annan ordered Dallaire to pass along his intelligence to the same government that was planning the massacre.

Dallaire, who had been ordered to disarm the future victims, was ordered not to raid the government arms caches that were later used to carry out the murder rampage.

Most of the killing was carried out by machete-wielding mobs acting as government subcontractors. But it would have been impossible to butcher hundreds of thousands ofarmed people, nor would the mobs have been able to round up and annihilate the targeted population without the active support provided by the regime’s armies and police forces — you know, the armed agents of state violence who were there to “protect” those who were hacked to pieces.

Children should learn what happened in places like Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda(as well as places like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee) when people willingly surrendered their guns to their rulers — but a government school classroom is no place for lessons of that kind.

One of the cases used to promote the Toy Gun Bash in Providence actually underscores the reliably fatal consequences of a government monopoly on force. The Globe points out that as children were herded toward the Bash-O-Matic, they were told the cautionary tale “of a 14-year-old boy who police nearly shot after they confused his air pistol with a real gun.” For rational people, this incident illustrates the compelling need to disarm the police, rather than swipe toys from innocent children.

The same schools that use DARE programs to recruit children into the Pavlik MorozovBrigade consistently force psychotropic drugs on children who display unfortunate symptoms of non-conformity. This principle applies to the issue of firearms: In the name of “Zero Tolerance,” children are routinely punished for such supposed offenses as bringing toy “weapons” to school (including — I am not making this up — candy canes), improvising them from school supplies, or even drawing pictures of guns, yet they are routinely encouraged to write letters to members of the imperial military who are “serving our country”  by killing people who have done us no harm.

Those who insist that religion has no place in the government-run school system aren’t paying attention: The entire purpose of “public” education is to catechize youngsters in the worship of the Divine State. Rituals like Providence’s Toy Gun Bash serve a sacramental function; they are the equivalent of a child’s first communion in the government-sponsored church of collectivist self-destruction.

While the little lambs are taught to be docile, submissive sheeple, the Regime is honing the lupine instincts of those supposedly tasked to protect them.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently described how recruits at the Metropolitan Police Department Academy are indoctrinated into perceiving the world as a 360 degree battlefield, where they are perpetually under siege and should be prepared to employ lethal force without hesitation.

“When you put that badge on, there are people who want to kill you,” intoned Officer Wil Germonsen, who — like a large and growing number of local police officers, has a military background.

The Review-Journal plays an extended riff on the familiar, fatuous, and entirely false assumption that law enforcement is a spectacularly dangerous occupation:

“After some time on the street, the recruits will never see the world the same way. They’ll always be on guard — carrying a gun on duty and off, checking out fellow shoppers at the grocery store, thinking about those worst-case scenarios while having dinner with the family. It’s like a switch that flips on and never turns off….”

“I believe every single recruit here, when they put that badge on, they are warriors,” insists Germonsen. “We’re fighting a war.”

What this means, of course, is that the state-created armed tribe to which Germonsen belongs is an army of occupation — primed to kill, given broad discretion in the use of lethal force, and trained to consider all of us who don’t belong to their tribe as potentially lethal enemies. Some way had better be found — and pretty damned soon — to de-fang those wolves in sheepdog disguise.  Meanwhile, it would be wise to do what we can to avoid placing ourselves at a potentially fatal disadvantage when dealing with those who belong to the Brotherhood of Sanctified Violence.

UPDATE: Bringing the War Home

“Many law enforcement officers called up to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are finding it difficult to readjust to their jobs once home, bringing back heightened survival instincts that may make them quicker to use force and showing less patience toward the people they serve,” reports the AP.
A report compiled last year by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance “warns that the blurring of the line between combat and confrontations with criminal suspects at home may result in `inappropriate decisions and actions — particularly in the use of … force. This similarity … could result in injury or death to an innocent civilian.'”
The Imperial Military makes increasing use of Guardsmen and Reservists whose “civilian” job is domestic law enforcement, and domestic police agencies increasingly recruit from the ranks of combat veterans. As noted above, police recruits are being trained to consider themselves “warriors” on a battlefield, rather than peace officers. We really should dispense with the illusion that contemporary law enforcement is anything other than the domestic branch of a seamlessly integrated military apparatus.(h/t The Agitator.) 

Second Update: Seattle as a Battlefront

Courtesy of commenter QB we see the following video of 27-year-old Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk gunning down John T. Williams, an artisan who was carrying a carving knife and a block of wood. No more than four seconds pass between Birk’s demand (it wasn’t a lawful order, because Williams was threatening no one) that he drop the knife, and the first of several gunshots fired by the officer. The entire encounter lasted roughly eight seconds.

Williams had a troubled past, but was not known to be violent. He had some emotional problems and, most importantly, was functionally deaf — which meant that he couldn’t hear the demand that he drop his knife — which was closed when photographed by crime scene investigators, despite Birk’s claim that it was open at the time of the shooting.

A peace officer in this situation would have taken at least a little more time to resolve the situation without drawing his gun, let alone discharging it. But, as we’ve seen on numerous occasions, contemporary law enforcement officers are on a war footing, which means that their default setting is “overkill.”

It’s worth noting that one of the officers who responded to Birk’s “shots fired” report tells him that he did the “right thing” — even though the official review subsequently ruled that the shooting wasn’t justified.

 

 


You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Fifth Amendment Explained

by Bill Rounds
How to Vanish

Recently by Bill Rounds: Avoid Private Investigators

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

Download This Free Guide

The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle of liberty. It gives American citizens better privacy. The burden falls on the accuser to build a case against a person. If the accuser does not meet that burden, the accused is free to go. The accused never, ever, is required to furnish any evidence or testimony against himself. In other words, liberty requires that you have the right to remain silent.

If the accused were forced to produce evidence that they did not commit an act, innocent people would be forced to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually far more difficult, if not impossible to do. Anyone without an alibi would be convicted. No one could afford to spend even one minute alone in that kind of world. The right to remain silent preserves a functioning system of justice and a functioning society.

Fifth Amendment Explained

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution does not say explicitly that you have the right to remain silent. It does say that you do not have to be a witness against yourself. This means that you cannot be compelled to reveal information that might implicate you in a crime.

 

You Have The Right To Remain Silent Applies To Innocent People Too

Law-abiding citizens are particularly at risk because they think that the truth will set them free. They feel compelled that if they just tell their story they will be exonerated. This is not true. Numerous opportunities abound for an innocent individual to become entrapped by speaking with police.

Fifth Amendment Explained: Exaggeration, Misspeaking, Broad Statements

Innocent people often overstate or understate some fact while vigorously defending their innocence. This makes their testimony technically untrue, or at least a prosecutor can make it look like it’s untrue. Once attention is called to the misstatement, the rest of the testimony is suspect because of the one untruth. This suspicion may be sufficient to land the innocent person in jail.

You Have The Right To Remain Silent: Honest Mistakes

Police officers may make an innocent mistake and not remember correctly what you said. If you claim you told the cop one thing, and he claims you said another, the police officer will be believed over an accused any day. If you had said nothing, the cop would have to flat out lie that you said something. That is not likely to happen.

There may be a witness that will mistakenly identify you as the suspect in a crime. If you claim one thing that is absolutely true, there may be a solid witness that is honestly mistaken about seeing you. If your testimony contradicts theirs, the witness will be believed instead of the accused. If you don’t say anything, there will be nothing to contradict and the honesty of the accused will not be in play.

Fifth Amendment Explained: Overcriminalization

The federal criminal code contains over 10,000 crimes. State laws add even more crimes to the list. Not even the government knows them all. Many of these crimes are for seemingly innocent behavior, such as buying 2 packages of cold medicine, or possessing a flower that any other country in the world has outlawed. Thus, telling your true story about your seemingly completely innocent behavior could, in and of itself, implicate you in a crime, you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever speak to government agents, ever.

Criminals know that talking may incriminate them and so are much more aware of their right to silence and are much more inclined to use it. Innocent people like you aren’t aware of these dangers. And, if someone is truly innocent, they need to know this right and know how to use it far more than criminals do.

You Have The Right To Remain Silent For A Reason. Use It For Better Privacy.

Under no circumstances should you ever talk to a police officer, fire fighter, ticket enforcer or street sweeper. All of them are government agents and can be a witness to use anything you say to them against you in a court of law.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that to invoke your right to silence, you have to break your silence and speak. They might need the fifth amendment explained to them again, but that is what they said. A simple phrase such as “I am invoking my right to remain silent” should suffice.

Free Aid For Better Privacy

There is a free and handy insert for your passport that will show you exactly what you need to do to invoke your right to remain silent. It is designed to help you right when you need it. You will have it with you as you go through Customs upon re-entering the US. Customs officers may need to have the fifth amendment explained to them too, so there are several cases which clearly show your right to remain silent in that situation. Remaining silent can give you better privacy when re-entering the country.

Customs will still have the right to do a thorough search of you and your belongings whether you invoke your right to remain silent or not. Threatening a search, or actually subjecting you to search for invoking your rights is within their power.

Avoid Hassle

To avoid being targeted for a search, it helps if you are not the only one invoking your rights. If lots of others are invoking their right to remain silent on a regular basis, no single individual will stand out any more than normal.

To decrease the likelihood of a search and promote even better privacy, share the free guide with everyone that you know. You have permission to post it anywhere, share it with anyone, make copies, print, and distribute it for free in any legal way as long as nothing is changed. The more people that exercise their rights, the better privacy for everybody.

Download This Free Guide

So go ahead and download and distribute this free guide and enjoy.

Reprinted with permission from How to Vanish.

 

December 9, 2010

Bill Rounds, J.D. is a California attorney. He holds a degree in Accounting from the University of Utah and a law degree from California Western School of Law. He practices civil litigation, domestic and foreign business entity formation and transactions, criminal defense and privacy law. He is a strong advocate of personal and financial freedom and civil liberties. This is merely one article of 73 by Bill Rounds J.D.

Copyright © 2010 How to Vanish





 


Anarchy vs. Barney Fife

by Mark R. Crovelli

Recently by Mark R. Crovelli: How Could Illegal Immigration Make America Any Worse Than It Already Is?

If you ever fell victim to the prejudice that people today are smarter and more intellectually sophisticated than the people of the 1st or 13th centuries, you need only ask your friends and neighbors about the terrifying word “anarchy” to prove to yourself that our generations are just as stupid and foolish as any others. Even mentioning the word with a straight face is bound to put your acquaintances on edge, which is remarkable in itself. But, once they recover their senses from hearing the word pronounced out loud without a clap of thunder following on its heels, they will usually offer an argument against anarchism that rivals in its sheer stupidity any arguments that the flat-Earthers ever gave in antiquity.

It usually goes something like this: Human nature is so intrinsically evil and depraved that, without cops walking the streets, judges locking up potheads, and politicians buying hookers and crack in Washington, the entire world would devolve into a horrifying bloodbath. Murder and rape would run rampant as soon as the “criminals,” (that is, all of us, as per our shared evil nature), got word that the police were no longer in the business of shooting, beating and incarcerating them. Virtually everyone and everything would be killed or destroyed in the ensuing mayhem. Cannibalism would probably even reappear for the barbaric survivors of the initial anarchic bloodbath. That’s right, cannibalism.

So, as you can clearly see, the fragile fabric of society is held together ultimately by the simple police officer, whom we all take for granted, and whose life is spent deterring the innumerable “criminals” out there from butchering one another, like you and me. Without police officers, given human nature’s intrinsic depravity, life would indeed be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

The sheer stupidity of arguments along the lines that human nature is so totally depraved that society would devolve into cruel chaos in the absence of police officers is almost difficult to fathom. One can forgive the flat-Earthers of yesterday for not being gifted enough in astronomy and mathematics to determine that the giant hunk of rock they stood on is spherical, but how can one forgive the people of today for thinking that that guy wearing blue polyester with mustard in his mustache in the corner of the deli is the very linchpin of human society? How can one forgive an intellectual error as large as the one that presumes that you and I would probably fight each other to the death if it wasn’t for that woman with a mullet and a radar gun under the highway overpass? How will future generations be able to comprehend an intellectual error as large as the one that holds that our very lives and our entire civilization hang oh-so tenuously from a 56-inch braided duty belt?

If our lives and fortunes were indeed dependent upon protection from a handful of people swaddled in hideous blue polyester, mankind would have long ago lost them. If human nature were truly as depraved as these arguments would have us believe, then the chubby blue line would long ago have been annihilated by its vastly numerically superior criminal adversaries. No “criminal” worth the name would be deterred from committing his favored atrocities by a small group of lightly-armed fat people, whose national reputation is tied inextricably to the donut. To even suggest that this 300 million-strong horde of savage, would-be criminals are kept at bay only by some irrational fear of blue polyester is so asinine that it makes the flat-Earthers look like geniuses by comparison.

This intellectual error is all the more inexcusable in America, where the population is armed to the teeth with high-powered rifles, pistols, and shotguns. If the American population were truly as depraved as this argument would have us believe all people are, then its bloodlust could hardly be contained by a few pudgy men and women carrying small caliber pistols. The thought is as laughable as would be an argument to the effect that the hardened and rifle-toting farmers of Mayberry were deterred from slaughtering one another by Andy Griffith and his slow-witted sidekick.

On another level, moreover, arguments to this effect are deeply insulting to people like you and me, for they insinuate that you and I are savage beasts that are only kept in check by those enlightened and portly souls who populate the local police force. Unlike those ultra-civilized “public servants,” you and I would like nothing more than to cut each other’s throats, if only the peace-loving police officers of the world weren’t holding us back. The truth, as anyone with eyes in America should be able to tell you, is precisely the reverse, since police officers and soldiers are often the most depraved perpetrators of the very crimes they claim to “protect” Americans from. The police are people just like us, after all, even if their waists are often larger, and they are capable of the same brutality as any other people.

There are some intellectual errors that one can excuse, or at least understand. The people of antiquity could not see that the Earth was round, so one can understand that they did not grasp that seemingly obvious truth There are other intellectual errors, however, that are so idiotic and so self-evident that they smash to pieces any sense of superiority we might be foolish enough to entertain over other peoples. Such is the magnitude of the error of dismissing the sublime idea of free-market anarchism by assuming that the geniuses in blue keep us savages from killing each other.

October 5, 2010

Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Mark R. Crovelli

 

 


When Cameras Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Cameras!

by Mark Nestmann
Sovereign Society

If you witness police misconduct and record it as a video on your phone or camera, you won’t be welcomed as a hero. In several U.S. states, you could be subject to a long prison sentence. In recent years, dozens of videos documenting police misconduct have been posted on YouTube. But prosecutors haven’t generally punished the offending cops. Increasingly, they’re arresting the individuals who posted the videos.

The charge? Illegal wiretapping. Yes, wiretapping – what the NSA does with impunity and without a warrant is illegal for us to do when we witness police abuse.


At least two states – Massachusetts and Illinois – make it illegal to record any on-duty police officer in any situation. It doesn’t matter if the officer is in the process of beating someone to death. It doesn’t matter if the recording is in your own home, and the police have just busted down your door in an illegal search. If you record the interaction, you can go to prison.

In ten other states, “all parties” must consent in order for a private person to make a recording of a conversation or personal encounter. Since a police officer acting abusively isn’t likely to give you permission to record the event, if you do so, you could be violating the wiretap statute – and be subject to a long prison sentence.


In Illinois, for instance, a street artist recorded his own arrest for selling artwork without a peddler’s license. He now faces up to 15 years in prison.

Arresting police whistleblowers is a nationwide trend. And the courts approve. For instance, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man arrested for recording a police encounter. Defendant Michael Hyde used the recording to file a harassment complaint against police. Instead, he was convicted of illegal wiretapping. While he was sentenced to only six months of probation, he could have faced a much longer prison term.

Cameras, in effect, are like guns. Point a gun at a police officer and you’ll be arrested. Point a camera at a police officer and you’ll be charged – and likely convicted – of illegal wiretapping.

The fact that wiretapping laws are being used against private citizens is richly ironic, because they were enacted to protect citizens against government oppression. These cases turn that notion on its head because those trying to protect themselves or others from official misconduct ends up being prosecuted.

Since we’re living in a surveillance society where the government continuously monitors our finances, our communications, and our movements, shouldn’t we have the right to turn the tables and, in effect, “watch the watchers?” Yes, but police and the courts disagree.

September 15, 2010

Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society’s Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

Copyright © 2010 Mark Nestmann


%d bloggers like this: