Skip to comments.Defend the castle!
Posted on 06/10/2011 6:28:26 AM PDT by marktwain
Recently, police have been involved in what looks like murder in the course of home invasion and murder with intimidation of witnesses and press. At this rate, I expect the distinction between the ordinary Ordnungspolizei and Einsatzgruppen to become insignificant.
As the experience with Minneapolis home invaders indicates, birdshot is not sufficient against armored opponents. At least two good hits were scored by the defender with minimal effect. The perpetrators were decorated by the police department even though they wrongdoing and settled the case at the cost to the taxpayers of over $600K. At least in this case the victims were not injured.
Jose Guerenas example suggests also that holding fire is the wrong thing to do if attacked by either freelance or government thugs. A lawful person who has no cause to expect a police raid is more likely to face regular criminals impersonating police than uniformed criminals representing themselves. In any case, return fire at least spoils the aim of the invaders. Just kneeling before the intruders while they take aim or kill your pets is not the way to go.
“I think our best defense is to insist that the police follow their oaths of office... it is a long term strategy...”
You mean like they did in 1936, Mr. Chamberlain? Are you Jewish by chance, sounds like the strategy the German, Russian, (fill in the blank) Jews have used to prevent the pogroms and other various holocausts that are visited upon them every 70 years or so.
Yep, if you have something that works why change?
Before opening fire on the police, regardless of how much in the right you are, you should be aware that by doing so you are choosing one of two options:
A. (the more likely) death by police fire on the field of battle.
B. life in prison.
Is it right these are the only two options? Nope. But that doesn’t change the fact they are.
Is this hill worth dying on? I firmly believe there are such hills, but is this it?
It is good for the short-term strategy. The long term strategy is to find out the officers involved via FOIA and the department’s watch log then sue the sh&t out of those officers, watch commander, chief of police, mayor, and city council, for violation of your civil rights and criminal home invasion. I’m pretty sure there are some hungry lawyers out there.
If that does not work, vote the city council out of office, along with the mayor, then fire all officers including the chief for dereliction of duty and have their certifications pulled.
I am not for equal violence, but if the above do not work, I cannot say what should be done.
The best way to reform police wrongdoing is to make sure that their extrajudicial overreach - when it occurs - becomes extremely painful for them.
Those interested in the subject may also find the following from Massad Ayoob of interest:
READING EVIDENTIARY VIDEOS: Point #1 Posted: 05 Jun 2011 07:08 AM PDT
After a discussion that began here in late April when I mentioned that cops were not only training for terrorist attacks on the ground in the US, but citing positively armed citizens response in some such incidents, the matter morphed into a debate about whether the cops themselves were terrorists. Several who took that position cited YouTube videos, and I said that a tutorial on the topic of how to analyze such videos for the truth they contain might be in order. Several who commented here endorsed that idea, so heres the first segment.
I was going to start with a non-police case, but since my last blog entry some have suggested that the recent fatal shooting of Jose Guerena in Pima County, Arizona would be a good place to begin. Fair enough. A good synopsis of this incident appears at Wikipedia, and should be read for background.
Prior to the recent release of a video of the incident from a camera mounted to the helmet of one of the SWAT cops, an aggregate of the myriad accusations against the police ran as follows.
Supposedly, the evil police (1) came silently like thieves (2) in the night, (3) wearing masks like burglars or home invaders, and (4) without identifying themselves, and opened fire on the homeowner (5) for no reason. It has also been alleged that they (6) shot him 60 to 71 times, (7) conspired to deprive him of emergency medical care until it was certain he was dead, (8) and made an illegal warrantless entry in any case, (9) should have known they werent in danger because the fully loaded rifle of the homeowner was recovered on safe, and (10) didnt have grounds to make the raid to begin with. Oh, and they supposedly (11) attacked the wrong address, to boot.
Six of those eleven accusations, more than half of the allegations, are proven false on their face by the helmetcam video.
We see and hear that the SWAT team (1) announced their presence with a high-decibel siren wail that lasted for several seconds. (2) It all takes place in broad daylight, shortly after 9:30 AM. (3) Several have no gear obscuring their facial features, and all are in readily identifiable SWAT uniforms. (4) If you listen for it, you can hear the cops verbally identify themselves. (5) The body language and movement patterns of the officers are consistent with people in fear of their lives, and one officer is seen to fall, giving others the impression that he has been shot.
Other points are refuted by other documentation released from the investigation. (6) The autopsy lists 22 gunshot wounds, not 60 or 71. (7) It is common custom and practice for emergency medical personnel not to enter a shooting scene until it has been searched and secured for other armed perpetrators; if you dont believe the cops, ask any paramedic or EMT you know. (8) Newsmen have independently investigated and confirmed that they indeed had a warrant. (9) Seen from the front (as when it is pointed at you) the AR15 rifle cant be visually determined to be on-safe or off-safe. (10) The continuing investigation indicates that there were indeed grounds for the search warrant to be issued by the officers. Read it here (in detail, please, if youre going to comment). And note from both film and warrant that (11) Mr. Guerenas home was indeed the designated, judicially approved target site for the warrant service.
The lesson? Ask yourself if the evidence of your own eyes and ears confirms the allegations in question and do the same with documented reports as soon as they are released.
Until the investigation is complete, Jose Guerena should be considered innocent until proven guilty insofar as the drug and home invasion allegations and the police who shot him should be considered innocent until proven guilty of having done so wrongfully.
1/The Wikipedia article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena
2/ The Search Warrant request is here: http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf
Yes. And seeing as option A is becoming more and more the case whether you return fire or not, one might do well to remember: "The first one will cost you your life -- all the rest are free."
Thanks for the post.
Many of these accusations against the police were repeatedly posted and discussed on FR as being facts, not allegations.
I particularly like the one about the cops supposedly responding differently because the gun was on safe.
This is in utter violation of gun safety principles, in which one is required to assume every gun is loaded and off safe. Now, in a confrontation, cops are supposed to assume a gun in on safe unless they can determine otherwise?
So essentially, Joe, you’re saying that once the UN Gun Control schemes are ratified by the Senate and massive law enforcement efforts to bring in gun owners are underway, my fate is sealed one way or another.
By that rationale, the ratification of any gun ban treaty or law by our government means the death sentence of millions of Americans, specifically those who will ardently refuse to lay down their arms, myself included.
...comforting. Molon labe!
signals opening day of hunting season.
As much as I want to agree with you, that same mentality was likely bandied about in 94 when the Clintoon AWB went into effect with little more than a whimper from gun owners.
I don’t want to believe that our government is in the business of stripping us of our rights, but they’ve certainly gotten more brazen about it as of late; and with little more affair than a blurb on the evening news, Americans are sitting fat and happy in their leather recliners watching their 60 inch DLP TVs in 1080p high def. We’ve become a nation of “go along to get along” types. I’m just as guilty.
If that does not work, vote the city council out of office,
***One man has one vote. This position is ridiculous.
Usually when this type of situation happens, the town/county remembers it at the election booth. Besides, it is not that difficult to get chief of police fired these days. The local pols want to keep their jobs.
Real freedom or abject abasement before our Masters?
Huh? Are you suffering from memory loss? The GOA, the NRA, the state 2nd Amendment organizations in California where I was stationed at the time, talk radio listeners and hosts, and everyday gun owners across the nation fought that bill tooth and nail. The AWB was a huge reason (for many it was the major reason) the 'Rats were swept out of Congress in the '94 elections, giving the Pubbies their first majority in decades.
Maybe you (by your own admission) and the majority of the American Sheeple are sitting in Lazy-Boy recliners watching your 60-inch hi-def TVs, but remember, only about 5% of the American population actually fought in the American Revolution. I suspect those numbers will bear out if/when TSHTF again. So sit back and enjoy your 1080p...we patriots will do the heavy lifting for the rest of you.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Oh, me too. But I have a sick feeling in my stomach that the luxury of shrugging off yet one more outrage is about over. Working within the system is slowly turning us into tax slaves burdened with a bottomless pit of laws, rules and regulations. Freedom is an increasing illusion. 2012 looks like the last chance to change course, and I am no longer an optimist.
Sure! They are bound to comply ... they just forgot about their oaths in the first place, right?
4-5 seconds worth of a siren squawk that sounds EXACTLY like my car alarm instead of the half hour they initially claimed? Pounding on the door for 30 seconds when at best it's 8? Claiming they returned fire only after being fired upon?
Many of the accusations against the police are still very much valid. Including insufficient evidence for the warrant itself...
Fog of war.
More like Jack of Boot...