To understand the answer we will need to define what an officer does, what our rights are, and how they should be working to protect our rights: our natural rights and the rights granted within the U.S. Constitution.
What is a police enforcement officer? The etymology of the word police has the same meaning as policy, “way of management”, and comes from the Latin word politia, “civil administrator”, and the Greek word polis, “ancient Greek city-state”. Enforcement means “constraint, compulsion”. Officer comes from the Latin word officium, “a service, a duty”. A police enforcement officer is someone who’s service and duty is to force you to comply, “management”, with a city-state’s regulations and policies.
What is a peace-keeper? Peace comes from the Latin word pacem, “compact, agreement, treaty of peace, tranquility, absence of war”, and keeper, “one who has charge of some person or thing, warden”, so a peace-keeper is someone who has taken charge and become a warden of peace and the absence of war. Police enforcement officers have become militarized which is the opposite of what a peace-keeper should be. Police enforcement officers are not peace-keepers and should not be confused with them. This is the current state of our police force within the United States.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence
What are unalienable rights? Unalienable rights are rights which cannot be given or taken away, without first violating the rights of others. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights we should all enjoy. The Foundation for Economic Education published an article explaining in depth John Locke’s view on natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Thomas Jefferson got most of his ideas from Locke for the Declaration of Independence. Note: These ideas are anarchist views, Google voluntarism and anarchism.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that police pledge an Oath of Honor that says they will never betray public trust, they will hold others accountable for their actions (this should include other police officers) and to uphold the U.S. Constitution (e.g. Gun Rights “shall not be infringed”). Having spent six years in the Army I understand what it feels like to pledge an oath to the state and to the Constitution and hold to it as an honor.
Do you believe police honor their oath?
The U.S. Constitution is the very corner stone of our society (at least it should be) and has been one of the greatest government approved documents outlining individual rights ever created, even with its flaws, by placing limits on what the government can do against its citizens and what actions citizens can take to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. This is of course within our recorded history.
Yes, it is a flawed document but what do you expect when royalists still wanted a king during a time that owning slaves was legal? Luckily at a perfect time several prominent liberty-minded individuals, with strong anarchist views, were in positions to guarantee enough rights and freedom for individuals. Some ideas for the set up for our government were from the Iroquis Confederacy. Sadly, due to having to make political deals unanimity became democracy.
Democracy is where the majority make slaves out the minority…
One problem is that many try to interpret the words written in the Constitution by giving the words different meanings, they try to stretch the meanings, or they make exceptions when none were listed, but words have definitions and we should be reading the Constitution literally (definitions) for the time period it was written in, and the political climate, not in today’s language.
“All men are created equal”… If they really considered “men” to include blacks, or slaves, or women then why did we need a 13th Amendment or 19th Amendment? We know, at least we should know, that all humans are created equal and have the same natural rights as everyone else, as long as they do not violate the rights of others.
What do we consider a violation of a right? Do you only care about legal rights, natural rights, or do you care about both? Remember slavery was legal under the Constitution and was a legal right but it is a violation of our natural rights to life, liberty, property (product of labor), freedom to seek happiness (doesn’t mean you will achieve it), and freedom of movement.
One thing is for certain we should never, ever, remove rights and should only add rights if they do not violate the previous rights set. My rights trump your feelings. My rights trump your security. My rights matter only if I do not violate others’ rights. Your rights matter only if you do not violate other’s rights. This concept should be acceptable to everyone who values rights and freedom.
The federal government creates hundreds of new laws every biennium that will turn you into a criminal. The day before you wouldn’t have been but now you are because someone else decided to dictate your life. Each state adds more laws than what the federal government produces every biennium. This equates to roughly 400 to 650 new/changes in laws and regulations every two years, regardless of where you are, that could make you a criminal at the state or federal level. This does not include the local ordinances that again restrict additional freedoms. Many violate our natural rights and legal rights set forth in the Constitution. The amount of dumb laws is ridiculous.
Do you consider yourself a free person?
Sodomy is any “sexual activity that involves oral or anal copulation” and got its roots from the bible. There are 18 states with some law involving oral sex, so we shall only look at Maryland as evidence. Maryland has a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding $1,000, if a person takes “the sexual organ of another or of an animal in the person’s mouth”.
Now many now might be saying “yea it is law but it isn’t followed” but I have also been told that “the law is the law” and we should be following all laws, right? We have systemic racism built into our judicial system at every level. How many laws were instituted when slavery was legal or created shortly after slavery was outlawed? How many times do you see states trying to enact laws that limit rights after a Supreme Court ruling in favor of rights? This is not freedom but a slow erosion of our rights. Another form of slavery. Every new law means we have lost rights. This is a fact and it should not be acceptable to anyone. The sooner we can come to terms and agree that we have a problem and it is wrong we can move on by addressing the real problem, government and its laws, and those who enforce the government’s will.
When a government becomes tyrannical it will be police enforcement officers leading the way to the violation of our rights, regardless of the oath they take using police brutality. We have previously defined police and brutality means “savage cruelty, inhuman behavior”. Police brutality means a way of management using savage cruelty and inhuman behavior. If police brutality is only a threat and doesn’t occur during a given situation does that change your opinion? An implied threat of violence that would be carried out if you disobey a police enforcement officer should still be considered police brutality when it violates a right.
"Just follow the law" or “don’t resist” are very common responses when issues and discussion arise concerning police brutality. Responses like these are logical fallacies that do nothing for healthy debates. We should never follow bad laws, slavery was legal. This thought process is only causing the situation to become worse. Several cases have concluded that you can resist arrest up the point of the killing an officer if they are committing an unlawful arrest.
We must take the words literally and with the understand that this is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government (anarchist views). Without the right to bear arms, self-defense, all other rights can be taken away with ease. It will be federal agents and police enforcement officers who take away your rights. Shall not be infringed. Infringe comes from Latin “to damage, break off, bruise” or “to violate”. Our right to bear arms shall not be violated. Massachusetts has a ban on semi-auto “assault” weapons (if you know anything about weapons statements like these are laughable) and will now be pushing even harder to enforce this law. Police will enforce this law, a clear violation of our rights. No victim no crime. If someone has not committed a crime, then they should not have their rights infringed upon. If someone commits a crime and serves their sentence then they should have their full rights returned, or it is a violation of their rights.
Our rights are being violated on a daily basis. Many new laws listed have minor fines as maximum punishment, but not all; the real point of these new laws are revenue generation (taxation is theft), but what if you don't pay, and don't pay, and don't pay... They put a lien on your home? If you are lucky. Take your property? If you refuse to comply, regardless of how morally correct you are in the given situation, eventually police enforcement officers show up and you are arrested. Sometimes they don’t even arrest you with a warrant or probable cause and violate your rights of unreasonable search and seizure. If you attempt to defend yourself, your family, or your property you will be murdered because you defended yourself from having your rights violated.
All deaths of the innocent are tragic, but who determines what or who is innocent? When police shoot innocent people the word innocent becomes a subjective term, but is it really? Are you really a criminal for a victimless “crime”? The etymology of the word innocent means “doing no evil; free from sin, guilt, or moral wrong”. How can a word that has an objective definition be subjective when being used? Easy, perspective due to hypocrisy in their line of thinking. Does someone deserve to be murdered for not paying taxes or for violating many of the frivolous laws that dictate our lives?
For the most part when I speak to others on an individual basis and talk about rights most tend to have strong anarchist views. Anarchism is freedom. The largest minority is the individual and we are not free, but we can be. Sterlin Luxan, at Psychologic Anarchist, wrote a great article “On Becoming an Anarchist: The Character and Contour of a Freeman” that is worth a read.
I shall leave you with this…
We should never follow bad laws that violate our rights. Peace-keepers would and should be those who protect our rights while keeping the peace, and it should be their duty to act in support of our rights when someone is in trouble. They should not be shooting unarmed civilians, regardless of color or creed. If they can’t or won’t do that then they should choose another profession. As individuals, on an individual basis outside of their job, I bet many police enforcement officers are decent people with good intentions but the current position of a police enforcement officer when they make victims out of victimless crimes, violating our rights including constitutional rights, should not be revered and should be opposed at every step that restricts our freedoms.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” – Thomas Jefferson
Update: Added video 20160725
Turn on. Tune in. Rebel!
We are an open source radio station. We do not censor. We welcome debate. We encourage disagreement. We want to hear your voice. We want to be your soapbox.