Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Police State Meets No Resistance
http://www.newstribune.com/stories/090901/sta_0909010070.asp ^ | Sunday, September 9, 2001

Posted on 09/10/2001 5:43:42 AM PDT by Israel

Sunday, September 9, 2001

Salem man arrested after two day standoff with federal, state authorities

SALEM, Mo. (AP) -- A man who was holed up in a home north of Salem was arrested without incident Saturday afternoon by officers who entered the house nearly 48 hours after a standoff began.

The suspect offered no resistance when about 20 federal agents entered his home, said Mark James, special agent in charge of the Kansas City office of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Authorities would not say who lived in the home, but relatives and neighbors identified the resident as 43-year-old James "Jamie" Schwartz.

The standoff began Thursday afternoon at the home about eight miles north of Salem on Missouri 68 when agents tried to serve a federal search warrant and an occupant refused to come out.

A woman left the home Thursday shortly after officers arrived. James would not say where she was or if she had been arrested. No children were in the home when officers arrived.

James said he could not discuss what prompted the search warrant because it had been sealed by a judge. He would say only that agents "found what we were looking for."

Denton County Sheriff Bob Wofford said his department had previous contact with the suspect but he declined to elaborate.

"We knew there was activity here," Wofford said.

The suspect is expected to be arraigned before a federal magistrate in St. Louis, possibly as early as Monday, James said.

A team of 12 negotiators had been unsuccessful in contacting the man throughout the siege, despite using bullhorns, a telephone and robots equipped with audio and visual capabilities.

James said officers decided to enter the home in part because they were concerned about the man's condition.

"The individual would not answer us or respond to us," James said.

About 100 officers, including some from U.S. Customs, surrounded the home throughout the standoff.

Portions of Missouri 68 were closed and two homes located nearby were evacuated. James said the inconvenience caused by the standoff also was a factor in deciding to enter the home.

Mike and Mary Mrozowicz, who live in a nearby home that was not evacuated, said the ranch-style house also has a mobile home on the property.

The Mrozowiczes said they've seen men wearing camouflage clothing and helmets hiding in the nearby woods with guns.

They said they've seen agents coming and going over the last couple of days, but the agents weren't giving area residents any clues what they were doing there.

The warrant was ordered out of the eastern district of Missouri. Jan Diltz, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in St. Louis, said she could not discuss the warrant.



 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
America's police state is run like Arafat's Force 17.  Does anyone want to know why they should care for Israel?  Start with unity of purpose: hang together, or hang separately.

John Ashcroft may not be muslim, but he exhibits the symptoms of apostates; the inability to justify not using state power to do good, if it is in their power to do it.  A natural consequence of abandonment of the law of God-- a limited covenant law.  But then, he is "free from the tyranny of the law", isn't he?

Cops First, American Freedom Second

I told these gentlemen some time back that we should iron out our differences in private -- as honorable men. Some time back, we had another heated skirmish over this same fundamental issue, and it escalated way too far, on both sides. What started as sincere attempts at discussing the issue of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws later deteriorated into profound contrast in our fundamental priorities. Over this period of differences of opinion, we have seen some of the heartiest statements I've seen to date -- from the gun rights community -- in defense of the Police State Mentality. Here is one of many:

"To anyone out there who says I or ANY other cop should abandon our primary responsibility to their family and walk away for people who don't support what we do ANYWAY, I say ... F*** Y** - get over it. That's right, my primary responsibility is NOT to you, it's to my family..." (November 24, 2000) Bruce Emmott, former NYPD
OBLIGATED TO ENFORCE:

"lucian" lucian@e... wrote:

"Lets recall some testimony from our trials of German war criminals-something about lawful orders. Surely the directors of death camps had warrants."
Mr. Emmott responded:
"I'm getting REAL TIRED of s*** like this.[...]Police officers are bound by statute to enforce laws on the books of their jurisdictions - not the federal Constitution. If there is a local law concerning firearms ownership that requires the arrest of a civilian - the officer has no choice but to enforce that law."
Leroy Pyle has also placed the blame for police abuses on gun owners:
"I am more aware of the "us vs. them" attitude, Chris, but it doesn't seem to be coming from the cops!" Nov 20, 2000
Then there is the blind faith some cops exhibit in any law enforcement agency, as exampled by the following quote from Mr. Emmott when I attempted some reasoning with him:
"So the ATF fabricated the entire document, committed numerous counts of perjury, all to persecute this poor guy - is that what you're saying slick?"
Well, why not? They've done it before. Not only that, there is at least one major false statement on the affidavit that we know of, so why not more? And why is the ATF even there? Who gave them authority? And is that authority legitimate? (NO.)

Though dozens of great quotes from various founding fathers would have served to drive home many of my points in this lengthy message, I'd planned on refraining from The Quote Technique in lieu of letting my words stand on their own -- but I can't resist just this one:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~~ Samuel Adams
Then there are the more subtle justifications for disarming people whose sole "crime" is possession of a gun the State Worshippers continue to ban. In his controversial article Just Following Orders, Leroy Pyle said,
"I am concerned that it has become a catch-phrase among firearms activists to criticize law officers for enforcing current laws...I wonder at the wisdom of such rhetoric." Leroy Pyle, 2ampd Co-founder
Criticizing cops for violating our rights is, to Mr. Pyle, "rhetoric." In placing responsibility on whose "fault" it is that police follow orders that include gross violations of civil rights, Mr. Pyle goes on in his article to list a host of the people and groups he says are truly to blame, and says, "They give the orders that your police are obligated to follow." [emphasis mine] "Obligated." If a police officer is told to go do X, according to Mr. Pyle and some of his key, threat-making associates, the police must do it. Strapping an able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 with a felony for possessing a militia rifle is "an obligation." We must keep that in mind in California as Mr. Pyle's "obligated" peers set about enforcing the "assault weapons" bans.

But aren't peoples' lives and liberties also obligations? And isn't it an obligation we owe this and future generations to keep our nation free -- and make it freer? And when the obligation to remain alive and free meets the "obligation" to infringe on rights to make a paycheck for a family, which obligation is more important? Which is right? There is a Superior principle here. Why it isn't emanating from 2ampd, I do not know. Perhaps they will write a lucid article that can make sense to gun owners whose lives, fortunes, families, liberties and sacred honor are regarded as less important than cops' paychecks. Submit it here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNPAdd.asp.

Traitors, Tradition and Treason

Traitor n. (Dictionary.com) One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Traitor \Trai"tor\, n. [OE. traitour, OF. tra["i]tor, tra["i]teur, F. tre[^i]tre, L. traditor, fr. tradere, traditum, to deliver, to give up or surrender treacherously, to betray; trans across, over + dare to give. See Date time, and cf. Betray, Tradition, Traditor, Treason.] 1. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country. See Treason.

Tradition (Dictionary.com) 1. The act of delivering into the hands of another; delivery.

Treason n. (Dictionary.com)

    1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
The roots of words hold great power and rich meaning, and the interconnectedness of words is a most fascinating subject, indeed. When you look up the word "traitor," you are referred to the words "tradition" and "treason."

As pertains to the infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Traitors do all of the following:

  1. defile the tradition of arms, keeping arms, bearing arms, enjoying arms, learning arms, and passing on all of the above to future generations
  2. defile their own country and are usually too ignorant to know it
  3. defile the future society in which their own offspring must live
  4. defile their own honor
  5. and find transparent ways to say all of the above is not true.
And there is no such thing as a "sometimes traitor." If you're a great guy 95% of the time but the other 5% of the time you are infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, sweet talk yourself all you want to; you're still a traitor. There is one Second Amendment; either you support it, or you don't.
1 posted on 09/10/2001 5:43:42 AM PDT by Israel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Israel
U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Fatalities per 100,000
Year 1999
Commercial Fishermen 162
Timber Cutters 154
Air Pilots 65
Construction Laborers 37
Garbage Collectors 34
Truck Drivers 28
Electricians 12
Gardeners (non farm) 11
Police 11
Carpenters 7
"By cultivating a hyper-inflated myth of heroes sacrificing their lives for you, police have created a shield of public veneration to defend against criticism of any misdeed. Who then can blame police for building arsenals against the citizens, for firing at first blink, for mafia-like codes of silence? Who then can refuse police funding requests for ever more militarized arms?"
  • Maria De Santis, Women's Justice Center, "Police Deaths, Planting Petunias, and Procreation."

2 posted on 09/10/2001 5:48:31 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Israel
Does anyone else think it's odd that garbage collectors are three times more likely than cops to "not come home to their families," yet we don't equip garbage collectors with incendiary tear gas and M60 machine guns?
3 posted on 09/10/2001 5:50:23 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Israel
You anarchists are having a bad day. Must be baggage from your childhood.
4 posted on 09/10/2001 5:54:20 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The most evil part in all these things are the statements that "We" don't have to tell you citizens what is going on, what this person "did" (if anything) and why...we are making you leave your adjacent homes and why "WE" are blocking YOUR highway, etc...

The secrecy is where the evil lies!

5 posted on 09/10/2001 5:57:34 AM PDT by No!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Israel, bang_list
BUMP
6 posted on 09/10/2001 6:01:03 AM PDT by Hail Caesar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
James said he could not discuss what prompted the search warrant because it had been sealed by a judge. He would say only that agents "found what we were looking for."

This seems to be SOP for the JBT's lately.(sealed warrants) Is this something new for gun cases or has it been around for awhile?

7 posted on 09/10/2001 6:01:42 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: No!
The secrecy is where the evil lies!

The only controversy is the secrecy as far as I am concerned.

8 posted on 09/10/2001 6:02:04 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: verity
You anarchists are having a bad day. Must be baggage from your childhood.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776.

9 posted on 09/10/2001 6:03:25 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Israel
"We knew there was activity here," Wofford said.

Damn.... there's activity in my house, too!

10 posted on 09/10/2001 6:24:07 AM PDT by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
I live here in Minnesota, in the Twin Cities. I live in probably what would be called the Liberal Mecca of the Midwest, second only to Chicago. Do you know what I see nearly every single day driving to and from work?

I see the local law enforcement violating people's rights. When a car is pulled over, the driver is not only made to get out, but the vehicle is searched. I have seen this more times than I can count. I don't know what the deal is, or why this happens, but I can tell you honestly, that it is more often than not, illegal to do so without probably cause. Now what bothers me anymore, is what exactly dictates probable cause?

When I see these people pulled over, it's not people of any particular race. It's people of all walks of life, and colors. What bothers me the most, is what will happen when I get pulled over for some minor violation? If I speed, or run a red light, or if the police decides to run my plates, will it end up in a search of my car? I have nothing to hide, but if this becomes common practice, and the police continue to do this, and people accept it as common, what does that say about where my community is headed?

I guess it doesn't take much to train sheep now does it?

11 posted on 09/10/2001 6:24:24 AM PDT by MadRobotArtist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Israel
German soldiers in WWII knew these types as kettenhunde.
12 posted on 09/10/2001 6:25:40 AM PDT by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
This seems to be SOP for the JBT's lately.(sealed warrants) Is this something new for gun cases or has it been around for awhile?

I brought up the same issue last week. Sealed warrants are evidently SOP. Supposedly the warrant is sealed from the public, but not from the defendant or his attorney.

My problem with sealed warrants is, given the level of integrity of judges these days, they are liable to give the JBT's a blank warrant and let them fill it in after they find something they can use and before the defense attorney gets to see it.

Who would know?

Of course the jack-boot lickers will all say that would never happen, and you are a cop-hater for even bringing up the possibility.

13 posted on 09/10/2001 6:35:41 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MadRobotArtist
. When a car is pulled over, the driver is not only made to get out, but the vehicle is searched. I have seen this more times than I can count. I don't know what the deal is, or why this happens, but I can tell you honestly, that it is more often than not, illegal to do so without probably cause.

Maybe these folks are ignorant of their rights under the Constitution, and are afraid to make a stand against police abuse.

Unfortunately, the number of people that would question authority during a traffic stop are very few. Most people are afraid to make waves.

I lived in that area a few years ago (Wayzata, near Grays Bay.) You're right...it was pretty liberal when I lived there (87-94) and I'm sure it's worse now.

14 posted on 09/10/2001 6:53:12 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
bttt for later
15 posted on 09/10/2001 7:03:54 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
"We knew there was activity here," Wofford said.

I saw activity yesterday at the house of the retired widow across the street. Should I report it? Is reporting a matter of conscience or is it my legal obligation to report? I don't want any trouble here.

16 posted on 09/10/2001 7:09:03 AM PDT by hauerf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The sealed warrant is probably the same as our 'secret indictment', which has to be obtained via a grand jury. That means the officer (probably a detective) goes before the grand jury if he thinks he has enough evidence to file for a warrant.
18 posted on 09/10/2001 7:14:00 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
Then why don't they say so?

It would go a long way toward satisfying us "cop-haters" if LEAs didn't act like nothing they did was anybody's business but their own.

Peace.

19 posted on 09/10/2001 7:17:46 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: imberedux
Perhaps they have good reason to NOT say so yet. Did that thought occur to you?

You and I agreed we would ignore each other, remember?

Thanks for playing.

21 posted on 09/10/2001 7:21:43 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
According to CNN, the number of police attacked or threatened on the job was 306 per thousand, while the number for private security guards was 218 per thousand. According to the National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities (NTOF) Surveillance System sheriffs and bailiffs are murdered on the job at twice the rate as private security guards, but at half the rate of taxi drivers and chauffeurs (who are sometimes lucky to even get tipped). Police and detectives (public service) were murdered on the job at a similar rate to private security guards.
22 posted on 09/10/2001 7:27:56 AM PDT by sendtoscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
>Maria De Santis, Women's Justice Center, "Police Deaths, Planting Petunias, and Procreation."

"Women's Justice Center?"

Why the hell would anyone post this crap in FR?!

Here's another paragraph from this same loony report: "The myth of police dangerousness again and again attracts the wrong kind of people to the job. A hyper male ego is the last thing that's needed at ground zero on the critical fault lines of society's problems. And it's the last thing that's needed to handle crimes of violence against women which accounts for about a third of all police calls." [emphasis mine]

Hyper male ego?

This jackass website bills itself as: "Tertulia is a comprehensive, weekly roundup of the latest news on women and women's rights from around the Spanish-speaking world."

Did I go to sleep in 2001 and wake up in 1967?! Mark W.

23 posted on 09/10/2001 7:30:12 AM PDT by MarkWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadRobotArtist
It was ruled long ago that the officer has the right to search the driver and the 'lunge area' inside the car.

I dont pull everybody out of the car that I stop, usually only those that I suspect may be driving under suspension, have warrants etc.

It usually goes along these lines. I stop someone for a violation, I tell them why I'm stopping them and ask for a drivers license. If they give me their license I either write a ticket or give a warning. Soft hearted schmuck that I am, most people whom I think are hard working people who cant afford a ticket, I give a break to and tell them to fix whatever the problem is so they dont have to give a days pay to the city.

But if they dont have a license and I suspect there may be a little more to the picture I ask them to step out. I then search them to make sure they dont have any weapons before I sit them behind me in my cruiser to check to see if everything is in order. If it is I go back to plan A, if not, and there is a warrant or something else, I do what I have to do.

We have to search and inventory peoples vehicles if we arrest them and tow the car.

I dont know many guys who pull everybody out and search their cars on every traffic stop. Not saying someone isnt doing it.

Yesterday in briefing one of the guys said that he wasnt giving any more tickets because too many cops were jumping on him for writing people tickets for 5 over the limit.

In Ohio if you are stopped and dont have your drivers license the officer can arrest you, the charge is "fail to display" (drivers license) Its fashionable for people who have reason to lie (DUS, warrant, etc) to give someone elses drivers info if they are stopped. Its fun to show up for court and look stupid when "the real John Doe" shows up instead of the person who used his ID when stopped and the prosecutor throws the ticket out. Most of the "real John Does" have no idea who used their ID when stopped by the police.

24 posted on 09/10/2001 7:32:54 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MarkWar
"Women's Justice Center?"

Why the hell would anyone post this crap in FR?!

Can you refute the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics data cited in the article?

If you can't, then the only thing you have just proven is that you are a bigot.

25 posted on 09/10/2001 7:34:59 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: sendtoscott
According to CNN, the number of police attacked or threatened on the job was 306 per thousand...

The findings were part of a newly-released report based on surveys of 45,000 households every six months between 1992 and 1996.

Violence was defined as anything from a mere threat of violence to rape to assault to homicide.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. Department of Labor Statistics reports work-related fatalities. The questionable "survey" you reference lumps minor threats (these days "you are a jerk" can be construed as a threat) together with homicide.

Not a very scientific survey. I will stick with the U.S. Department of Labor Statitics numbers, thank you.

28 posted on 09/10/2001 7:42:53 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: imberedux
LOL -- nope, YOU said that. Then you posted to me. So when you post "leave me alone" you show yourself to be a self-dealing hypocrite.

Is your life so meaningless that your only amusement is to harrass people who politely ask you not to?

29 posted on 09/10/2001 7:44:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
We have to search and inventory peoples vehicles if we arrest them and tow the car.

Do you seek or get permission from the owner? Do you obtain a search warrant? Don't you need "probable cause" to get such a warrant?.

Is this also true if you tow a car for a parking violation?

30 posted on 09/10/2001 7:46:43 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The questionable "survey" you reference lumps minor threats (these days "you are a jerk" can be construed as a threat) together with homicide.

Not a very scientific survey. I will stick with the U.S. Department of Labor Statitics numbers, thank you.


You remind me of one of those socialists who like to throw the term "scientific" around to impress the sheeple. How are stats combining threats made and threats carried out (to show how dangerous something is outside of simple accidents) specifically unscientific?
32 posted on 09/10/2001 7:52:04 AM PDT by sendtoscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sendtoscott
You remind me of one of those socialists who like to throw the term "scientific" around to impress the sheeple. How are stats combining threats made and threats carried out (to show how dangerous something is outside of simple accidents) specifically unscientific?

And you remind me of one of those people who resort to personal attacks when they lose an argument.

The scientific survey you reference lumps threats and homicides together. If you know of a way to objectively compare that with the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers which only address occupational fatalities, please enlighten me.

33 posted on 09/10/2001 7:57:27 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Israel
Great piece by Hunter S. Thompson.... read and enjoy.

He Who Goes To Law Takes A Wolf By The Ears

by Hunter S. Thompson

Special to lexisONEsm

I am not a criminal defense lawyer, but I have what they call "a very strong background" in the criminal justice system, and much of that background is based on extremely personal experience. I have taken that wolf by the ears many times, and I have learned many powerful lessons along the way. It is not the most desirable and certainly not the most efficient means of gaining an education in law. I would not recommend it for my son, for instance, or for anyone else's children. There is no prestige in it, and sure as hell no money. It is like getting an education in electricity by wandering around in a lightning storm with a long steel rod in your hands.

I have known a few jails in my time, and I have been in many courtrooms for many deeply disturbing reasons. My parents were decent people and I was raised, like my friends, to believe that the police were our friends and protectors — the badge was a symbol of extremely high authority, perhaps the highest of all. Nobody ever asked "Why?" It was one of those unnatural questions that are better left alone. If you had to ask that, you were sure as hell guilty of something, and probably should have been put behind bars a long time ago. It was a no-win situation.

My first face-to-face confrontation with the FBI occurred when I was nine 9 years old. Two grim-looking agents came to our house and terrified my parents by saying that I was "a prime suspect" in the case of a federal mailbox being turned over in the path of a speeding bus. It was a federal offense, they said, and probably carried a jail sentence.

Mailboxes were huge back then. They were heavy green vaults that stood like Roman mile markers at corners on the neighborhood bus routes and were rarely, if ever, moved. I was barely tall enough to reach the mail-drop slot, much less big enough to turn the bastard over and into the path of a bus. It was clearly impossible that I could have committed this crime without help, and that was what they wanted: names and addresses, along with a total confession. They already knew I was guilty, they said, because other culprits had squealed on me. My parents hung their heads and I saw my mother weeping. I had done it, of course, and I had done it with plenty of help. It was carefully plotted and planned, a deliberate ambush that we set up and executed with the fiendish skill that smart 9-year-old boys are capable of when they have time on their hands and a lust for revenge on a rude and stupid bus driver who got a kick out of closing his doors and pulling away just as we staggered to the top of the hill and begged him to let us climb on.... He was new on the job, probably a brain-damaged substitute, filling in for our regular driver, who was friendly and kind and always willing to wait a few seconds for children rushing to school. Every kid in the neighborhood agreed that this new swine of a driver was a sadist who deserved to be punished, and the Hawks A.C. were the ones to do it. We saw it more as a duty than a prank. It was a brazen insult to the honor of the whole neighborhood.

We would need ropes and pulleys and certainly no witnesses to do the job properly. We had to tilt the iron monster so far over that it was perfectly balanced to fall instantly, just as the fool zoomed into the bus stop at his usual arrogant speed. All that kept the box more or less upright was my grip on a long, "invisible" string that we had carefully stretched all the way from the corner and across about 50 feet of grass lawn to where we were crouched out of sight in some bushes.

The rig worked perfectly. The bastard was right on schedule and going too fast to stop when he saw the thing falling in front of him. The collision made a horrible noise, like a bomb going off or a freight train exploding in Germany. That is how I remember it, at least. It was the worst noise I'd ever heard. People ran screaming out their houses like chickens gone crazy with fear. They howled at each other as the driver stumbled out of his bus and collapsed in a heap on the grass. The bus was empty of passengers, as usual at the far end of the line. The man was not injured, but he went into a foaming rage when he spotted us fleeing down the hill and into a nearby alley. He knew in a flash who had done it, and so did most of the neighbors.

Never believe the first thing an FBI agent tells you about anything — especially not if he seems to believe you are guilty of a crime. Maybe he has no evidence. Maybe he's bluffing. Maybe you are innocent.

Maybe.

"Why deny it, Hunter?" said one of the FBI agents. "We know exactly what happened up there on that corner, on Saturday. Your buddies already confessed, son. They squealed on you. We know you did it, so don't lie to us now and make things worse for yourself. A nice kid like you shouldn't have to go to federal prison." He smiled again and winked at my father, who responded with a snarl: "Tell the Truth, damn it! Don't lie to these men. They have witnesses!" The FBI agents nodded grimly at each other and moved as if to take me into custody.

WHACK! Like a flash of nearby lightning that lights up the sky for three or four terrifying split seconds before you hear the thunder — a matter of Zepto-seconds in real time — but when you are a 9-year-old boy with 2 full-grown FBI agents about to seize you and clap you in federal prison, a few quiet Zepto-seconds can seem like the rest of your life. And that's how it felt to me, that day, and in grim retrospect I was right. They had me, dead to rights. I was guilty. Why deny it? Confess now, and throw myself on their mercy, or what? What if I didn't confess? That was the question. And I was a curious boy, so I decided, as it were, to roll the dice and ask them a question.

"Who?" I said. "What witnesses?"

It was not a hell of a lot to ask, under those circumstances — and I really did want to know exactly WHO, among my best friends and blood-brothers in the dreaded Hawks A.C. had cracked under pressure and betrayed me to these thugs, these pompous brutes and toadies with badges and plastic cards in their wallets that said they worked for J. Edgar Hoover and they had the right, and even the duty, to put me in jail, because they'd heard a "rumor in the neighborhood" that some of my boys had gone belly up and rolled on me? What? No. Impossible. Or not likely, anyway. Hell, nobody squealed on the Hawks, or not on the President, anyway. Not on me. So I asked again: "Witnesses? What witnesses?"

And that's when I first grabbed that wolf, folks. I had no choice. It was self-defense. I didn't want to do it, and I sure as hell didn't plan to, but he got too close to me and he smelled like death, so I seized him — and everything since then has been like a chain-reaction, a series of finely connected explosions.

We never saw those FBI agents again. Never. And I learned a powerful lesson: Never believe the first thing an FBI agent tells you about anything — especially not if he seems to believe you are guilty of a crime. Maybe he has no evidence. Maybe he's bluffing. Maybe you are innocent. Maybe. The law can be hazy on these things. But it is definitely worth a roll.

"Were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under the care of wolves." - THOMAS JEFFERSON, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1784

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson's books include "Hell's Angels," "'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72," "The Proud Highway," "Better Than Sex" and "The Rum Diary." His new book, "Fear and Loathing in America," has just been released. A regular contributor to various national and international publications, Thompson now lives in a fortified compound near Aspen, Colo.

34 posted on 09/10/2001 7:58:50 AM PDT by Basil314
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
This is a 'search incident to arrest' and is a 'warrantless search', so a warrant is not needee in these instances, however this can be abused, and if something is found the court would have to rule on same.

With parked cars we can tow them if they are a hazard, if the registration is expired or if they are abandoned junk MV's. If the car is locked up we generally dont search them too much, just write down on the inventory sheet what we can see from the outside.

35 posted on 09/10/2001 7:59:10 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
If every cop handled stops just like you do, there would be less complaints, although some will complain if the cop agreed to wash his windshield, polish his shoes and give hime a free ticket to the next Browns game.

You are correct that the Courts have upheld police's right to do a lot of things which, although IMO are a direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

It is also true that a lot of cops do a lot of things which the courts do not allow just because they can get by with it.

I have a friend who is a retired FBI agent. We once were discussing the little town of Ludowici, Georgia. This agent would never use his credentials for personal indentification, for one thing, it is illegal to do so, and it is just not good form. He did do so on one occassion.

He was driving a plain unmarked vehicle, (not a black Crown Vic, with black premium tires, no chrome etc.). He was looking for someone in Ludowici to ask some questions of when he noticed the Ludowici town police take notice of him. Sure enough, after about 10 minutes the local cop pulls him over, and asks, not for his license, but for ID. The agent knows this was his chance. He pulls out his plastic laminated credentials, opens it and says, "did you have probable cause to stop me."

The local about faints on the spot, turns red, stutters and profusely apologizes. The agent decides to cut the guy some slack, after all, he might need the guy's help sometime.

36 posted on 09/10/2001 8:03:20 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
In the cause of absolute accuracy, I should mention that the preceeding story is true in every thing except a couple of minor details which it was necessary to change.
37 posted on 09/10/2001 8:11:41 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: sendtoscott
U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Fatalities per 100,000
Year 1999
Commercial Fishermen 162
Timber Cutters 154
Air Pilots 65
Construction Laborers 37
Garbage Collectors 34
Truck Drivers 28
Electricians 12
Gardeners (non farm) 11
Police 11
Carpenters 7

The Bureau of Labor Statistics data displayed shows the relative danger of on-the-job fatalities for a number of occupations. The data shows that a garbage collector has a three times better chance of "not coming home to his family" in the line of duty than a police officer.

Can you refute that statistic?

40 posted on 09/10/2001 8:14:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The scientific survey you reference lumps threats and homicides together. If you know of a way to objectively compare that with the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers which only address occupational fatalities, please enlighten me.

Your stats compare apples to apples (workplace deaths vs workplace deaths), mine compare oranges to oranges (threats of violence and violence, vs. threats of violence and violence). Its not a matter of choosing between your stats and my stats (or comparing apples to oranges), the two sets of stats compliment each other.
41 posted on 09/10/2001 8:16:13 AM PDT by sendtoscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sendtoscott
Please see post #40.
42 posted on 09/10/2001 8:17:30 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
James said officers decided to enter the home in part because they were concerned about the man's condition.

Sir, what is that around your kneck? "It's just a stethescope." I know you are concerned about my health, but why does your stethescoped look just like a MP5 submachine gun? And I don't like the look of that blood pressure cuff disguised as a flash bang.

43 posted on 09/10/2001 8:25:49 AM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
LOL, your right, I'm afraid of what is going on in this country too. I see rights slowly but surely going out the window. And I sadly believe that they will keep dwindling away.
44 posted on 09/10/2001 8:28:02 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: big ern
James said officers decided to enter the home in part because they were concerned about the man's condition.

I am glad he made it to the due-process-of-law part.

If he deserves capital punishment I'd volunteer to stick the needle in myself, but there should be a trial first.

Burning people at the stake was supposed to have gone out of style a few hundred years ago.

45 posted on 09/10/2001 8:29:54 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Its not a matter of choosing between your stats and my stats (or comparing apples to oranges), the two sets of stats compliment each other.

Re-read what I wrote, my stats compliment yours. I didn't claim they refuted yours. In case you didn't notice,

I was agreeing with you about how being a cop is not the world's most dangerous profession.


46 posted on 09/10/2001 8:31:11 AM PDT by sendtoscott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Anybody who uses LOL twice , under the apparent impression that it's 1997 and that slang is still "hip" is not worth getting upset over.
47 posted on 09/10/2001 8:33:05 AM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Regarding your #19, your right, I dont know why, well, in some instances I know why, some guys make it an 'us v. them' mentality and look at everybody as trash.
48 posted on 09/10/2001 8:33:45 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MadRobotArtist
My Uncle Bob was a 30 year veteran of a police force in suburban Cleveland. He was best man at my wedding 40 years ago. He served in an era when MOST cops embodied the now frequently hollow motto emblazoned on patrol cars all over this country: “TO PROTECT AND SERVE.”

The last years of his career were spent as the chief Juvenile Detective in his department. When he died, a number of the young men whose lives he had touched years before came forward to tell how his timely and sometimes tough-love intervention turned them around.

I know that many officers STILL try to live that creed today. I also know that there are officers out there who, despite the rulings by the Supremes that they have no obligation to specific, individual citizens, would stand between one of us and a bullet – and have.

My sister is married to a good guy – who was also a good cop. And I STILL vividly recall a business trip and having a flat tire. I pulled onto the narrow shoulder and was opening the trunk when I spied a Georgia State Trooper’s car cross the median, hit the flashers and pull in some distance behind me and a bit closer to the road, shielding me and my car from the 70 MPH traffic. SHE got out and asked if I needed any help. I told her I could probably handle it. She said she’d keep her unit there until I got done.

THEN she spotted my cane and saw that I was partially disabled. Before I could object, she was in the trunk, had wrestled the spare to the ground and was jacking up the car, all the while asking me to remain safely near the guard rail. About that time, two county deputies stopped and pitched in. The lady trooper cut her hand fooling with the jack and soiled her freshly pressed uniform wrestling the dirty flat back into the trunk. They couldn’t have been nicer! I took their names and wrote highly complimentary letters to their superiors – all of whom promptly acknowledged them and thanked me for the kind words.

These officers – like my uncle – grasped the significance of “To Protect and Serve.”

I also recognize that the cops – like Gort in “The Day The Earth Stood Still” -- are simply the muscle (the “enforcement”) behind the legislative and statutory “law” enacted by society as a whole. That is, after all, why it’s called “LAW ENFORCEMENT.” And although it could be argued that this society may be morphing into the homonym for “whole” as you read this, these laws are enacted by our alleged “representatives” meeting in generally safe, quiet and opulent chambers far from the increasingly mean streets where the cops ply their trade. If the cops have too many intrusive and abusive laws to enforce, check the nearest mirror for a likeness of the responsible party.

And if the cops ARE abusive to the general citizenry, why aren’t HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of us RAISING UNHOLY HELL at each and every meeting of the responsible governing body? French political philosopher Joseph D'Maistre declared that "Every people gets the government they deserve."

Have we really become the “nation of sheep” an author foresaw many years ago? If so, we have little right to object to the shearing. Or the coming slaughter and culling of the flock. And my guess is that the culling will begin with the most troublesome and noisiest sheep. And guess who THAT is?

An old friend who is a ranking officer with a large police department. I would rate his love of our freedoms and the Constitution against anyone here at FR. A few years ago, he told me that IF the order to begin some sort of weapons round-up among the general citizenry ever came down from “on high,” we would quickly know about it from the reports of disturbances and gunfire from the neighborhood cop shop: Fully HALF the officers in his department are Second Amendment guys. He and they would be the first to resist such an order – physically if necessary. What should scare us all is the shift in our demographics and the continuing leftist indoctrination by the government schools, making it impossible to know how much longer that ratio – and sentiment – will hold.

Having said that, I also recognize that EVERY large barrel contains some bad apples -- and SOME cops are “cowboys.” Some are simply power driven megalomaniacs who would have dropped on the OTHER side of the law had their lives drifted a degree or two off the course they did take.

I believe this to be especially true of far too many federal law enforcement types who have allowed their egos and hubris to become as bloated as the bureaucratic federal behemoth they serve. Their mandate is no longer to “…protect and serve” the citizens who pay their salaries: It is to crush any meaningful resistance to a growing body of procedures, regulations and policies – too frequently enforced under severely tortured interpretations of the underlying legislative enactments (if any) – and often put in place by executive fiat. The massively abused SEIZURE statutes – laws the author of which now seeks to RESCIND! -- spring to mind.

And one cannot but help to wonder how the clear criminality of the Clintons – and their subsequent avoidance of any penalty – has played into the problem. There now seems to be a bright line between the easy, highly flexible, slap-on-the-wrist law for the rich and powerful and the rigidly enforced law against even the tiniest victimless “crimes” committed by those of us further down the food chain. Does anyone in his right mind believe THAT will NOT engender added disrespect for ALL law?

Could those things be a large part of the problem in some of the highly disturbing – and DEADLY (on BOTH sides) – confrontations we have witnessed over the past decade or so? Gordon Kahl, Ruby Ridge, OK City, Waco, Beck… This list WILL lengthen and we’d all better pray that WE will be spared.

Roman historian Tacitus warned that one could tell the level of corruption in a society by the NUMBER of its laws. Anyone doubt the level of corruption here?

Am I the only one who thinks we’re long overdue a serious review of the NUMBERS of laws under which we are now forced to exist – and which are increasingly used not to assure our safety or well-being, but to COMMAND AND CONTROL us and KEEP US IN LINE.

Only the most tyrannical and power-crazed members of law enforcement could possibly object to that.

The modern counterparts of my uncle would not object.

It is THEY, after all, who are most likely to catch that bullet – probably fired by someone who has symbolically screamed to himself “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE” -- referred to earlier when they sally forth to serve that flimsy warrant or make that bogus arrest.

49 posted on 09/10/2001 8:36:24 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sendtoscott
I was agreeing with you about how being a cop is not the world's most dangerous profession.

Sorry, I have been attacked so much lately as a "cop-hater" (which I most certainly am not) that I guess I have developed a siege mentality.

Now I know what a cop feels like!

Peace.

50 posted on 09/10/2001 8:37:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson