See, the present is already a boot stamping on a human face, and if it is, why, that face just plain deserves it. Besides, it will only hurt worse if you clench up.
Pity we didn't have men like him in 1776; he'd've set those tinfoil-hatted fools straight. Yep.
h/t to Claire Wolfe.
Update: Hm. Fairly major disagreement here in Roseholme about what Mr. Suarez meant. And "fairly major" as in "irreconcilable reads." (Little bit of backing and filling at blog where he posts, too, which you can find for yourself, he's had enough links.)
Lookie, the Indiana law says you may resist unlawful entry by police; I think we all understand that A) if Johnny Law has a warrant with your home on it, you're as scrod as any other mild whitefish and that B) outnumbered and outgunned is not a good starting point. If it is possible to de-escalate the situation, you are much better off surviving to sue than making headlines in a blaze o' glory or getting shot down before you even got the bedside gun on-target.
But that doesn't make it right -- and that's what gets under my skin with his post, the persistent refrain of, "They wouldn't be kicking in your door if you didn't have it coming." Or, as he put it, "...some poor dudley-do-right getting victimized by those 'evil jackbooted thugs', read between the lines and then consider the source as well. Anyone from a war hero to a Pastor of a church can be involved in criminal actions that get them noticed..." Umm, wait -- I thought you were talking about unlawful police entry? Maybe wrong-address raids? And suddenly J. Random Presumed-Innocent is "...involved in criminal actions...?" Golly. One of these things is not like the others!
Nor ought you accept that living in the wrong neighborhood means you've got it coming. How practical is the advice to "work as much as possible and move out" for the 88-year-old retiree, living in the home she and the late Mr. Retiree bought in 1945? --And meth labs and basement pot farms show up in "nice" neighborhoods, too; so moving out isn't a solution.
That the police can mess folks up plenty bad, he and I don't disagree about; but he seems to take it as given, and to believe that only tinfoil-hatted loons would want to change it. I'm not on board with that -- and when it comes to voting and gettin' word out, I have just as much firepower as any sworn officer on a SWAT team. And so do you.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
33 comments:
He has a point.
The problem with 1776 is that what it took to "get noticed by the wrong people" is what most of us* consider to be living life as free men.
Yes, it's definitely possible for an innocent person to have his door kicked in, either because the cops got the address wrong or because somebody gave them a bad tip. I think that it really, really would serve us to have a national dialogue about the use of no-knock raids in the first place. Further, I would say that, IF the police kick in the wrong door, they should be liable for damages (including punative damages for suffering and distress) and for murder if things go badly wrong.
However, I think Suarez is pretty much right: MOST of the time, the cops show up because they've got SOME reason to think that Bad Things are going on. One can argue whether or not a SWAT team is needed to bust a guy who's been selling a few ounces of weed (I think it's ridiculous bordering on evil), but one CAN'T argue that selling weed is a crime, and crimes tend to attract the attention of the police.
FWIW, Chris Rock has a humorous (and NOT PC!) take on how black people can avoid getting their a**es kicked by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
Good advice, really, starting with "obey the law".
====
(*) Given the disturbingly high level of approbation for things like Nanny Bloomberg's soda ban, I'm not sure that I can say that "all" of us value liberty very much.
Starting out, he makes the distinction in that article between tinfoil-hatted 1776'ers and police-can-do-no-wrong "good Germans" and promptly goes on to place himself firmly in the do no wrong camp.
Wrong address raids ought to be criminally prosecuted, I don't care if that dumbass disapproves of the neighborhood or not.
Maybe there's one little flaw with the idea--it would be a huge temptation for criminal types to try to plant false leads to trap the swattoes into making a wrong address raid, so maybe not.
But damn, there are few things as maddening as reading about a no-knock that hits the wrong address and an innocent citizen goes down in a hail of lead.
Gabe Suarez is a hygienic implement with disgusting connotations.
Mike James
Jose Gurrena.
Can you say "seig heil Boss"? There are no "safe neighborhoods" these days. Grow houses and meth labs cross the socio/economic barriers. There are other ways to take the bad folks out. If you hit the wrong house it's no different than murder or breaking and entering. If you are not intelligent enough to be at the right house we don't effin need your services!
Wow, that's depressingly close to the views on carry that a wannabe limousine liberal, prospective Inner Party Member, I know has.
Mr. A's views on carry is that if you live in a "good neighborhood" the odds are so low you don't really need to carry, and if you live in a "bad neighborhood" you're probably just contributing to the problem by not moving.
Oh, and if you still are at "high risk" and are one of "the good ones" then you clearly deserve to carry.
I expected better from Suarez. There's a difference between taking preventative action and accepting the situation as righteous.
DocJim: please point to that part of the Constitution -- Federal or State -- that allows for the regulation of pot. Then have a look at the book Three Felonies A Day: every day of your life, you probably commit at least one crime as dire as the nitwit with a baggie of ditchweed. Do you deserve to have your door kicked in -- and if it is, shall we shrug it off as a lamentable but inevitable excess?
Generally: the mere existence of "SWATting" undercuts Mr. Suarez's argument. Not to mention that that kind of bowing meekly to Authority is simply unAmerican.
Whatever happened to the Justice system being so concerned about the innocent that "ten guilty persons should escape than that one innocent suffer?" Is the ratio reversing? Is the new standard, "Better we stomp an occasional innocent granny one time in ten (or a hundred, or a thousand) than pass up even one guilty man?"
How many dead/injured/terrified innocent people is too many? ...Hell, law enforcement seems to be adopting a "shoot all dogs on sight" policy already, why not go whole hog and just start napalming houses instead of doing SWAT raids? They probably have it coming, and you have have the fire department ready to hand! And think of the improvement in officer safety.
That entire pile of contemptible excrement exemplifies the exact nature of the problem. Note, just for starters, the title of the site: Warrior Talk. Yes, we, the only ones, are the warrior elite, and you'd better just get used to us being in charge and stomping your ass. This, in a Country where, supposedly, there is no grant of title or privilege. Yeah, and I've got some nice development sites for sale out on the delta for you too!
As you said, RX, had today's govt. been in charge in 1775, they'd have been SWATTING Revere, Madison, Jefferson, et. al. So much for Liberty, eh?
How dare we have the audacity to stand up and say, "ENOUGH!" Move to the suburbs, buy a minivan, and shut the hell up. Oh, and make sure it's the right part of the suburbs, even if it means leaving a home you've lived in for 30 years.
You know, I had heard good things about Mr. Suarez as a trainer, but after reading several of his posts, I wouldn't let the guy train me to take the trash out.
Only Ones indeed.
Robert Fowler beat me to it. Two words completely demolish any argument Gabe Suarez was trying to make:
Jose Guerena.
The police had next-to-no reason to go in there guns blazing, gunning down Jose where he stood, and yet this appealing-to-authority dickless Wonder Dog would have us believe that shootings such as that one are simply the way it is, and we had better just roll over and take it?
I will say what you probably cannot bring yourself to say, Roberta, and you are probably the better person for it: fuck him.
Yes, the "militarization of the police" is the gorramed problem (or, at least, one of them), and until that gets addressed, situations such as these are just going to spiral out of control until we do have a Shootout at Joe Schmo's House, and it sure as hell does not help that SWAT teams have given criminals another believable vector to impersonate. Given that, "rolling over and taking it" is only the advisable course of action if you are personally profiting from the conflict, or too much of a damned coward to do something about it.
In Gabe's case, it is likely both.
Accidentally getting the wrong address is easy.
We lived, not too long ago, in a duplex. One fine day, the po-po came knocking on our door TWICE, looking for our neighbors. Just in general, folks knocking on our door instead of theirs happened once a month, minimum.
"Just move" is the sort of economic snobbery that makes me want to punch someone.
I don't much care for the tone of the article...no where does it place responsibility on the police to do things right. I feel the author is basically saying "I'm the jackboot and your neck is under it...get used to it."
Roberta: I agree with what you say. However, what we now have is a LEGAL system, not a justice system. It is a system far more oriented towards bureaucracy then anything else...one of my greatest fears is being arrested (for any reason) and incarcerated, because without money or connections you are cooked. (I am pro-police and pro-law and order, by the way. And I don't get involved in illegal activities, even recreational ones)
I live in a very nice house in a very nice area. The house was first owned by a person who is a guest of Club Fed for drug trafficing. So much for moving to avoid problems.
I note Mr. Suarez has closed comments on the post in question, which prevents me leaving something intemperate and uncharitable. Prob'ly for the best.
Synchronicity apparently is still a force in the world. I ran into this article this morning--this is what we're supposed to get used to, I guess.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cops-military-gear/
Explain to me why a town with 20 or 30,000 people needs its own armored vehicle. Because I'm just not seeing it, unless the point isn't law enforcement, but something far more frightening.
Synchronicity apparently is still a force in the world. I ran into this article this morning--this is what we're supposed to get used to, I guess.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cops-military-gear/
Explain to me why a town with 20 or 30,000 people needs its own armored vehicle. Because I'm just not seeing it, unless the point isn't law enforcement, but something far more frightening.
Given the present attitudes, it's just a matter of time before we repeat the history of Ruby Ridge, and or Waco.
I would remind everyone that Mr. Gabe Suarez left his law enforcement employer in disgrace and plead guilty in a plea agreement to a number of crimes related to his dismissal.
I don't remember if he plead to 'felonies' or not, but I do remember he was initially charged with multiple felonies.
I don't know about you but I'm not much of one for letting convicted criminals tell me what the 'po-leese' should and should NOT be doing....
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Robert, Linoge: I'll see your Jose Guerena and raise you a Kathryn Johnston.
How convenient you remember what he was charged with, but can't recall what was plead to. Old news that Mr Suarez has answered for and also about. Find new material.
So "anonymous", if that IS your real name, are you saying that accusations are not enough to pillory Mr. Suarez? Yet you seem to agree with him that the innocent getting stomped or shot based on an accusation acted upon erroneously is ok. I feel a discordance in the force.
It seems some of you have found out about the truth. Civilian law enforcement has been under the control of the Chairman of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff (the military) since the Emergency War Powers Act of 1941. Secretly we take our orders from the U.N. which is why you can find the color blue in most every police uniform even if just enamel on the shield.
Riiiiiight.
As for the earlier anonmyous, if merely being indicted for a felony is so dire as to stick in public memory even after the accused has pled down to a misdemeanor, how much worse is an unlawful or improperly-warrented LEO entry to one's home? --Or does it only matter if it's your ox getting gored?
In re the charges against Mr. Suarez, as I understand it, they were nothing violent. Just a bit of fast footwork along the general lines of collecting disability from one job while working another; this might be regarded as skeezy or even morally reprehensible but being charged is not the same as being found guilty. He may be happy assuming (for others) that where there is smoke, there must be fire but as for me, I will do no more than note he is a mere misdemeanant, as so many of us are, and retains his full measure of civil rights.
Hell, law enforcement seems to be adopting a "shoot all dogs on sight" policy already, why not go whole hog and just start napalming houses instead of doing SWAT raids?
MOVE, 1985.
RobertaX - [P]lease point to that part of the Constitution -- Federal or State -- that allows for the regulation of pot. Then have a look at the book Three Felonies A Day: every day of your life, you probably commit at least one crime as dire as the nitwit with a baggie of ditchweed. Do you deserve to have your door kicked in -- and if it is, shall we shrug it off as a lamentable but inevitable excess?
First, we are in accord regarding drug laws: not only can I not (as you say) undertake to lay my finger on that part of the Constitution that gives Uncle Sugar any authority in this area, I think that it's wrong in general to tell people what they may eat, drink, smoke, sniff, snort, or otherwise ingest: it's their lives and they should be at liberty to live them (or not) as they see fit.
However, the law is what it is, not what I wish it to be, and selling weed is illegal. This attracts the attention of the police. Unfortunately, along with criminalizing any number of mundane, pedestrian, and otherwise common actions, we've also set about not only GIVING the police lots of ability to use lots of force, we've practically DEMANDED that they do so:
"WHAT! That dirty drug pusher got away because he flushed the drugs before the police could get inside to grab them??? It's an outrage! Something must be done! We need to give our boys in blue more weapons and equipment to get those lousy b*stards!"
And so forth...
I can see why people are critical of Suarez in this regard; Americans shouldn't have to cower before authority. Unfortunately, when Authority comes with a bunch of M-4-toting, heavily armored, trigger-happy friends, it's not such a bad idea to figure out a way to avoid his notice.
What do drugs have to do with it?
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jun/22/swat-team-enters-home-people-inside-arent/
In that case intel led the police to believe the people inside the home were saying bad things about the local PD. They invited the local media to film the raid. And the likely cause was someone piggybacking on their internet connection. Imagine being shot over what some dumbstick posted on a social media website.
Docjim: Okay, point taken.
All: Remember, not every mistaken entry is necessarily an illegal entry. The main reason for the Indiana law is to take care of those times when Officer Friendly suspects J. Random Basher of badness, decides to check out his lodgings without any of the normal formalities and ol' Joe slugs him to prevent his so doing. Our black-robed geniuses had decided that Joe had no right to even ask the officer to stop, let alone act to actually stop him. The Legislature disagreed and took action of their own.
"...it's not such a bad idea to figure out a way to avoid his notice."
Docjim, here's a goody:
"We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box". -- Ambrose Bierce (1887)"
I first ran across that one on Kim du Toit's old blog.
At some point, maybe it ought to be their turn figure out how to avoid our notice.
Mike James
Anyone citing anything written by Suarez as being level-headed tactics for a law-abiding gun owner should think about what they gain with fellow gun owners and RKBA supporters by doing so.
Any cop who wonders why the public is turning against LEO's need do little else other than read the thuggish rants of Suarez.
Suarez could have gone down for multiple felonies, but had a good lawyer. His wife was also charged, BTW. That doesn't happen very often in bad-cop investigations, but it happend in the Suarez case.
Now, with all of what has happened to him, you'd expect a rational, reasonable man to drop the thug attitude. After all, he's learned what it's like when the ADA decides to screw you to the wall, right? He's learned what it's like to be the target of unjust prosecution, right?
Nope. Instead, he doubles down on the "Me cop, you shit under my boots" attitude.
I really do understand the "stay off the radar of the law" thing -- and, at least by Indiana standards, I am a model of probity.* But day-um, that radar has been set to alarm on a lot of things, and more every day.
Law enforcement is a hammer -- and it gets used on many things that are not nails.
___________________
* My firearms and how they are carried and kept would make me a criminal in many U.S. States and most countries. Oh, well.
Mike James - At some point, maybe it ought to be their turn figure out how to avoid our notice.
I agree. When I read here and on Tam's blog about the (ahem) antics of the IMPD, I have to shake my head and wonder who hired - who continues to employ - those yahoos. They are a disgrace to the American law enforcement community and should be drummed out forthwith.
But, if our cops are rotten, if they are thugs, if they go to far, then whose fault is it if they get away with it?
Mr. Suarez sounds like a thug with a badge.
Mike
Except lacking the badge. He is who he is; he's picked his side. If push comes to shove, will they pick him?
I'm willing to bet as long as you mention the name Gabe Suarez he doesn't care what you say before or after it. I checked the number of members and guests of his forum and I must say it is impressive.
Jeepers
Post a Comment