The Crime Report: Gun Rights Defenders and Anti-Police Protestors are on the Same Side

louisville police shoot rioter

(Max Gersh/The Courier Journal via AP)

According to Emily Riley, writing boldly under the title “TCR Staff” over at The Crime Report, those of us who defend gun rights have a great deal in common with the crowd that wants to defund the police. Okay, so the original quotes come from a George Mason University assistant professor. Or do they? The Crime Report’s headline and intro to their post is a bit misleading.

They wrote:

Protestors calling for stricter measures against police violence should be on the same side of the barricades as Second Amendment opponents of stricter gun control, argues a Virginia law professor.

Since both fear the government’s ”monopoly of force” and are skeptical of authorities’ ability to protect citizens during times of unrest, they have an equal interest in Constitutional guarantees of the right to bear arms and protect themselves, Robert Leider writes in a forthcoming article in the Northwestern University Law Review.

“Decentralizing force allows private citizens to defend their interests and to protect the public when the government under-enforces the law,” wrote Leider, an assistant professor at George Mason University.

So if I’m reading this correctly, it would seem Leider believes the defund the police crowd has an interest in the right to bear arms? As in, they agree with and support the Second Amendment? Hmmm.

Then there’s this statement from the Crime Report post that’s hard to argue with:

“The government is under no obligation to furnish any individual citizen with police protection or law enforcement,” said Leider.

A slightly deeper dive – downloading the abstract and research paper for myself – showed Crime Report’s brief take on Leider’s work might not be entirely accurate (shock!). Directly from Leider’s work (access the abstract and download his work here):

How does all this relate back to the Second Amendment? The right to bear arms plays a critical role in diffusing executive authority.  Just as “[t]he war power of the national government is the power to wage war successfully,”33 the right of self-defense and the power to enforce the law must include some power to exercise these functions successfully.  The possession of weapons plays a crucial role in this by allowing those of unequal strength, power, and numbers to overcome their adversaries.  When those adversaries are individuals acting illegitimately against the public peace, the private right to bear arms serves both private and public ends.  And that right may be especially important when government agents are unable or unwilling to supply the necessary police protection.  In these cases, individuals may need appropriate weapons for self-defense and to keep the public peace.  Relatedly, the types of arms that they may need are those that are appropriate to these tasks.  Extensive restrictions, for example, on the civilian possession of less-than-lethal weapons (e.g., tear gas) may counterproductively increase the amount of lethal force individuals may have to employ in emergencies.  And prohibitions on the civilian possession of heavier weapons (e.g., rifles with high-capacity ammunition magazines) may make it impossible for grossly outnumbered individuals to protect themselves against lawless mass violence and for communities to restore order when their governments are unable or unwilling to do so.

The Crime Report’s interpretation — or at least the impression they first give you — doesn’t quite line up with Leider’s actual work. It might be worth your time to read through his report. His piece is an interesting perspective on the under-enforcement problems with law enforcement rather than harping on the current idea that over-policing is the problem.

Check it out and discuss. Is the issue with law enforcement really about under-enforcement?

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    They REALLY believe most folks with any brain wave activity actually swallow this bulls*it! Pathetic!!!

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Only the like minded.

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        The Crime Report: Gun Rights Defenders and Anti-Police Protestors are on the Same Side
        GUN NATION

        Negative. Gun rights defenders vote for politicians that respect their gun rights. Anti-police protesters vote for politicians that seek to eliminate gun rights. They are not “on the same side.” And culturally, barely even resemble one another. Anti-police protesters are generally not pro-freedom or pro-rights. They are just anti-government for those supporting capitalism.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      He’s an assistant prof who’s trying to make tenure and is probably desperate to get something—anything—into print. That’s a slippery slope that almost always leads to seriously dumb ideas like this. Writing crap like this will pretty much guarantee that he won’t find himself on a path to tenure.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Dennis,

      What was incorrect or inaccurate?

      I strongly favor/support significantly reduced policing. Why? Simply because I want police to get out of our way so that We the People can actually take care of business that needs taking care of. (Apologies for the poor English construction of the end of that last sentence.)

      For example, my neighbor across the street had three (now only two) psychotic German shepherds that have tried to attack and/or successfully attacked pedestrians and their pet dogs too many times to count. Unfortunately, the law in my state prohibits police from doing anything unless those dogs near-fatally or fatally maul a human. Since the dog attacks haven’t reached that level yet (dogs being on the loose and biting humans and pets is A-Ok as long as the bites were not life-threatening), police refuse to do anything. Of course several of us neighbors are quite willing to “solve” this problem ourselves. The trouble is that our state has deemed our solution a felony and police would actually come after us for ensuring that those dogs will never maul a pedestrian. (Important clarification: the solution which several neighbors — including myself — support does not involve approaching nor harming the dog owner.) For what should be obvious reasons, I despise the fact that police would/will imprison me for doing what they should have done — in a just a righteous society — long ago. For that reason, I support significantly defunding and reducing policing.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        I wish TTAG had a “like” button! Completely agree as my local 5-O are idiot’s. I tried to call them recently about illegal burning on a non 911 and the # was not in service! Didn’t believe me about gunshots on Halloween 2019,puzzied out on BLM rampage and generally only go after revenue. As a-holes go 60 on my 35mph street…sigh. Dog advice? Make life untenable for the owner!

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          @FWW: I once lived in a community that was rampant with drug crime and employed a feckless P.D. controlled by a mayor and city counsel consisting of business owners more concerned with their interests than the needs of the community. It was a river town with a less than stellar image that had been and continues to be a hemorrhoid on the ass of our state. After a few years of attempting to at least keep the neighborhood I resided in as safe and drug free as possible with and without the help of LE. I realized it was a losing battle and made the decision to Didi Mao. It was one of the hardest (I quit a good paying job) and best decisions (I met my wife) I’ve ever made. Sometimes you have to make the hard choice rather than continue to live in a “Shit show”. You are never so trapped as when you refuse to see the obvious and stay in an environment that was once a good place on the Hopes it will get better again. Knowing full well it never will. Keep Your Powder Dry.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Former Water Walker,

          Dog advice? Make life untenable for the owner!

          Several of us have been thinking about that. The problem: an elderly couple owns the home, are feeble/incapacitated, and their 20-something year-old scumbag grandson is living there. The grandson is a real piece of work — filing multiple fraudulent insurance claims of burglary (two of which I was able to concretely disprove) and attracting girlfriends who beat on their doors and windows, screaming/swearing about their love and hatred for him at 3 a.m. Of course that situation would not be complete without the grandson running a significant marijuana grow operation in the basement. (An insurance adjuster observed that when evaluating their claim of water damage in their basement and gave a friendly heads-up to another neighbor who works in the insurance industry.) In fact we are thinking that a major reason the grandson keeps the psychotic German shepherds at the home and on the loose is to discourage other scumbags from raiding is grow/stash.

          Compounding matters at my neighbor: whenever law enforcement is involved (whether addressing the dogs, women screaming and pounding on the exterior of the home at 3 a.m., or likely insurance fraud), the grandson always tells the police that the grandparents who lost their marbles are responsible and the police, feeling sorry for the elderly couple, never want to cite/arrest them.

          Sorry for whining. This has been going on for three years and significantly degrades our neighborhood. I suppose I will have to get even more creative.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Can you not drop a dime on the grow-op? An anonymous tip line the cops have?

        4. avatar anonymous says:

          I suppose I will have to get even more creative.

          Uncommon,

          Feed their dogs. Give them some food and pet them. Have your neighbors do the same thing. In fact, if you feed them and pet them enough, you’ll find that they will be “your” dogs, not the neighbor’s dogs.

          Back in the day, my dad’s neighbor moved his grandson across the street from our house. He was an unruly guy and his dog was not very nice and was constantly in our yard. But my dad liked the dog, and started feeding him, and petting him, and having him follow him around doing yardwork, and in no time at all, the neighbor was over asking if my dad had seen his dog, and my dad pointed at him laying down in his porch! LOL

        5. avatar anonymous says:

          He didn’t like his dog in my dad’s porch, and asked my dad to stop feeding him (which my dad did not!). And in no time at all, that dog was locked up behind a fence or in the guys home. That is the only way to solve that problem then. That also solved my dad’s problem, of having an unruly dog in his yard.

      2. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        Calling BS on this one. If the dogs really are biting people the owner will find themselves in civil court very quickly being sued for medical, pain and suffering. The dog owner will either get their dogs under control or go bankrupt even if the Police do nothing.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          TheBSonTTAG,

          What you say is what should happen. And I will tell you why it has/will not happen.

          1) The human dog-bite victim was a canvasser circulating a “clean water” petition. Either he had a warrant for his arrest for unrelated reasons or he did not have a permit to canvass. Thus he refused to call police. I requested and he allowed me to record him on video stating the facts and showing the bite mark and blood on his back side. In case you are not aware, only the dog bite victim can sue and/or request prosecution.

          2) The elderly couple were/are in extremely poor health, burned through all of their money, and filed for bankruptcy. And we keep hearing that their home is in a protracted foreclosure process. There is no point in trying to sue them when they have no assets. They have nothing to lose and they know it.

          3) My state’s laws do not provide any legal process to remove or put-down dogs until they fatally (or near-fatally) maul a human. Attempted attacks on humans (who manage to get into a car before mauling) or a nasty dog bite on a human does not meet that threshold. Dogs running at large in a pack does not meet that threshold. Making matters worse, putting-down dogs at-large is felony animal-cruelty which means our neighborhood is extremely reluctant to go that route.

          4) The grandson always blames his feeble and cognitively diminished grandparents for everything and law enforcement refuses to go after the grandparents. The last time their front door was wide open and the dogs were running loose and charging people, the deputies who showed up went to great lengths to ensure that nothing would come of it. First of all, the lead deputy wore a dog-bite sleeve (the thick sleeve which protects the arm of the “criminal” when trainers are training police dogs to attack criminals). The second deputy had a dog handling stick-and-noose. They were very careful and slow to usher the dogs inside the home — going out of their way to try and avoid having the dogs attack them. When it was all finished, I asked the deputy if he wanted video of the event (which I recorded) for evidence. His response, “No, I am not going to write a ticket to a 90 year-old woman.” And deputies refused to ticket the grandparents when their shepherds ran out of their yard, into the street, and bit another neighbor’s dog while she was walking her dog. I captured the attack on video — complete with audio of her dog yelping when the shepherd bit her dog — and showed it to our animal control deputy: neither the Sheriff nor the local Prosecutor ever did anything.

          In an ideal world, our justice system does what is right, honorable, and necessary. In the real world, our justice system often fails spectacularly.

      3. avatar anonymous says:

        — support does not involve approaching nor harming the dog owner.) For what should be obvious reasons, I despise the fact that police would/will imprison me for doing what they should have done — in a just a righteous society — long ago. For that reason, I support significantly defunding and reducing policing.

        Your problem isn’t policing. It’s “voters.” Police simply enforce the rules. You have those rules because of legislation, or lack of legislation. Because of representatives, or lack of good representatives. But both, ultimately, because of “voters” and also, likely being surrounded by a culture, that doesn’t see eye to eye with you.

    4. avatar Ron says:

      Just going to chime in and say BLM is a tax payer funded org.

      Yep. It’s true. Look it up.

    5. avatar C says:

      Remember not so long ago when the 2A community (us) was disgusted by the behavior of the police? Stop polarizing and start thinking again. You’ll soon come to realize that this professor is mostly RIGHT.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Maybe partially right. Not anywhere close to mostly right. Yes, cops piss me off sometimes. Cops lie and cheat often enough, to make their ticket quotas. Cops have been captured on video doing terrible things. Some cops are overzealous to violate 2A rights. Even so – most of us have very little in common with the assholes who have rioted in our cities throughout the summer. I am very unlikely to ever shoot ANYONE. I am only very slightly more likely to ever shoot a cop. Shooting a protester, ala Kyle Rittenhouse? You bet your ass I’d shoot, maybe a little more quickly than Kyle did.

        I’ll protest the bad cops peacefully. Unlike all the protesters we’ve seen on our city streets this year. I’ll write letters to my congress critters (just sent a letter today, as a matter of fact), and protest in court if necessary. The fact that my interests may overlap just a little with the protesters on the news doesn’t make them an ally.

  2. avatar Umm . . . says:

    In 2020? Yes, certainly. In general, it’s an excess of laws.

    Neither of those “issues with law enforcement” originate with law enforcement.

  3. avatar Ark says:

    Leftist anti-police rioters don’t believe the state shouldn’t have a monopoly on violence. They want to BECOME the state and BECOME the state so THEY can have a monopoly on violence to force their preferences on everyone else.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      That makes zero sense.

      The socialists created the department of police to subvert the power of the elected sheriff. They also created the National Guard to subvert the power of the organized and unorganized militias.

      Communists are simply trying to federalize the depart of police. This will give the president extreme power over all the states and his/her own private army that will kill Americans when ordered to. It’s the same old strategy seen around the world.

      The police are not there for you. They are there for the ruling class. The courts have said as much. You know this, but refuse to accept your reality.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Communists are simply trying to federalize the depart of police. This will give the president extreme power over all the states and his/her own private army that will kill Americans when ordered to.”

        Google “The Battle of Athens” (Georgia)”

        The participants that took part in ‘taking care of business’ nearly all had something in common – They were ex-WW2 combat vets.

        Ask yourself how many ‘War on Terror’ combat vets, experienced in using their weapons on a battlefield, are now civilians just living their lives and raising a family. What do you think they will do when the news breaks that the powers that be are killing everyday Americans?

        You know as well a I do what will happen… 🙂

        1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

          Not Athens Georgia, the one in Tennessee!
          https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Athens GA gave us the B-52s.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          My bad, Tennessee…

      2. avatar Ing says:

        No, it makes perfect sense. They’re trying to defund and disintegrate local policing in order to federalize all law enforcement and/or replace it with ideological enforcement apparatus, yes — because they are, and intend to be, the ones who pull the federal strings. Antifa “anarchists” notwithstanding, communists love big government (provided they’re in charge of it) more than anything.

      3. avatar anonymous says:

        The police are not there for you. They are there for the ruling class. The courts have said as much. You know this, but refuse to accept your reality.

        The leftists want to become the ruling class. He said that already. Your argument assisted his.

  4. avatar FedUp says:

    When police chiefs wash the feed of the ‘defund the police’ crowd, yeah, I want to defund the police too.

    When the ‘defund the police’ crowd burns, loots, and murders, while the police stand by ready to arrest anybody who defends themselves or their property, yeah, I want to defund the police too.

    In short, by trying to appease their enemies (and our nation’s enemies, AKA Marxist terrorists) who can never be appeased, big city police departments have managed to make enemies out of their former supporters.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Republicans support socialized departments that enforce unconstitutional rules on behalf of a ruling party? The line is so blurry these days. Good job.

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        Republicans support socialized departments that enforce unconstitutional rules on behalf of a ruling party? The line is so blurry these days. Good job.

        LOL. What precisely is a socialized department?

        How is apprehending (using whatever force necessary) criminals looting and performing arson “unconstitutional?” 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

        What do you mean a “ruling party.” The government was divided, with one party clearly in control of the house, another in control of the senate, and the third being impeached while golfing with his middle finger up.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      When police chiefs wash the feed of the ‘defund the police’ crowd, yeah, I want to defund the police too.

      LOL. That’s right.

      When the ‘defund the police’ crowd burns, loots, and murders, while the police stand by ready to arrest anybody who defends themselves or their property, yeah, I want to defund the police too.

      LOL. That’s right.

      In short, by trying to appease their enemies (and our nation’s enemies, AKA Marxist terrorists) who can never be appeased, big city police departments have managed to make enemies out of their former supporters.

      Absolutely right. I couldn’t stand the police before George Floyd. Now I love brutal police that literally beat people until feces are ejected from their criminal bodies, and despise milksop loser police that cater to the criminal mob.

  5. avatar MtnDewey says:

    just read the anti-federalist papers and the federalist papers and see the real arguments with the Constitution, Bill of Rights and each Amendment at the time. These people who write these articles are fucking stupid. the Constitution is not real anymore, it is an icon anymore. For those of us who still believe it to be a real document, full of imperfections obviously, but still valid. we will be tested, and soon. And no, there are no anti-police people anywhere who are pro gun. fucking stupid.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Trump already tested you on bump stocks, red flag gun confiscation and arm braces with his authoritarian power grab using his executive order to the ATF. Today, he is even calling for the overturning of the election, claiming he won.

      There are many ant police Americans who are pro gun. That’s how America was in the beginning. Some of those people still exist. It’s hard to find them in the Republican party.

      1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        hard to find anyone pro-gun in the Democrat party. Period. Also hard to find any that are anti-police non-authoritarians. Oh yes they rant and rave about police, but what they want is simply to remove the police to institute law and order mob style to their preference. CHAZ, Portland, and every other major city that had flash mobs and crowds terrorize random people and neighborhoods attest to this: they need to police (who aren’t always your friend anyway of course) out of the way to impose their own vision. That’s it, full stop. They are not magnanimous people who want to fight injustice, if you think that you are as dumb as your many repeated posts imply. Or just a shareblue shill.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “hard to find anyone pro-gun in the Democrat party. Period. Also hard to find any that are anti-police non-authoritarians.”

          “Reporting as directed, Sir!”

        2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          be honest with yourself miner. I highly doubt you are any anything other than nominally pro-gun, as you’ll turn in whatever the (D) directs you too and make excuses for it, and you’ll be fine with that blatant authoritarianism.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        Trump already tested you on bump stocks, red flag gun confiscation and arm braces with his authoritarian power grab using his executive order to the ATF. Today, he is even calling for the overturning of the election, claiming he won.

        1) It’s a complicated game they play. Using an executive order rather than legislation, means it can be overturned by the court. It can be overturned by a future president. Granted, it would have been better he not signed it to begin with. If Trump was weak in any ideological area of conservatism, it was gun control. And no president is going to perfectly match my cultural values, so it’s always going to be a crap shoot.

        2) He did not call for overturning the election. His claim that he won, must be proven in court. He knows this. You know this. I know this. Everybody knows this, so your assertion is moot.

        There are many ant police Americans who are pro gun. That’s how America was in the beginning. Some of those people still exist. It’s hard to find them in the Republican party.

        🤣 🤣 🤣 Yes. It’s hard to find them now! LOL. They absolutely have my support in beating the crap out of looters, arsonists, and rioters! I didn’t like the police either before George Floyd. Now I love them! And I symbolically stand next to them, put my around around them and squeeze their shoulder, and say, “Good job man, now beat the shit out of that arsonist/looter. I want to see actual shit squirt out of his ass while you are beating him.”

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    The CPK hates Cambodian police forces. Therefore liberty minded Cambodians and the Khmer Rouge are on the same side.

  7. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Police Department shouldn’t exist. The Sheriff Office is the constitutional law enforcement.

    Police do enforce a lot of illegal rules they call laws. Hence why they call themselves law enforcement. Gun control and the war on drugs are the two major instigators of public and police interactions. The heavy enforcement of those two segments of prohibition make up the majority of work for police and cause the most violence. Police patrol with the intent of finding ways to search for drugs and guns whenever they can create a “chance encounter.” Training teaches police how to manipulate people into giving up their rights so police can search for guns and drugs as a matter of routine.

    Removal of the prohibition laws will heavily decrease police interactions with the public and greatly reduce the prison population. It would also lead to lower levels of violence as the public feels less pressure to not buy a gun out of fear the government will use that against them or kill them simply for possessing a weapon on their person.

    Republicans refuse to follow the constitution and the human rights of all peoples. They do immense harm to their cause or what they claim is their cause. Democrats are starting to look more like the party of less authoritarian police efforts aka jackboot thugs. Liberal Republicans are pushing society further away from militias and private security with their support for the department of police and a standing military empire.

    Democrats are trying to balance themselves on a fine line of being pro big government and no police. Defund the police is their current strategy. If they were to actually do what they say, that would move society more towards being pro 2A and anti war. However, the establishment/corporate Democrats can’t allow that to happen because it hurts their profits and power dynamic. That’s why Biden and Kamala want to give more money to the police. The politicians always need law enforcement to enforce their rules, without them they are powerless Karens shouting into the wind.

    Americans have been conditioned into submission to authority figures. They fool themselves into thinking they have liberty.

    Republicans have the hardest time with the cognitive dissonance, so it makes sense Republicans would be mostly of the older generations. Republicans’ feelings are greatly hurt when you point out their contradictions. They get very defensive. Yet they shout on about masks and how property owners have no rights.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      There is no mention of any law enforcement agency in the Constitution. It does say that the Chief Executive has the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States which does require an enforcement mechanism, i.e,. Something other than a Sheriff which is a local office.

      The mechanism for law enforcement at the State and local level is left up to the various States.

    2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      dude, we get it, you’re a Bernie Bro communist. Just wrap it up. Yes there are a lot of unnecessary laws, but don’t pretend the alt-left isn’t massively authoritarian just because they don’t like police. These are the people that literally want an independent “PC police” agency that can make arbitrary and draconian rules for all executive government agencies which regulate private enterprise and social interaction with the aim of “greater equality” or more accurately total Harrison Bergeron style equity.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Not to mention agencies of the federal government having their own police(set up by the Obama administration). This way the feds can send in previously unknown agencies(not under control of the DOJ), to enforce unpopular edicts that local L.E. may not.
        This was set up to be more authoritarian, as a way that the feds can control the population. Shades of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s U.S.S.R. with multiple agencies with different agendas squabbling with each other harassing the citizens.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “agencies of the federal government having their own police(set up by the Obama administration)“

          I would certainly be interested in learning more about this, do you have a source or citation you could direct me to, thanks!

    3. avatar anonymous says:

      Police Department shouldn’t exist. The Sheriff Office is the constitutional law enforcement.

      Both are constitutional.

      Police do enforce a lot of illegal rules they call laws. Hence why they call themselves law enforcement. Gun control and the war on drugs are the two major instigators of public and police interactions. The heavy enforcement of those two segments of prohibition make up the majority of work for police and cause the most violence. Police patrol with the intent of finding ways to search for drugs and guns whenever they can create a “chance encounter.” Training teaches police how to manipulate people into giving up their rights so police can search for guns and drugs as a matter of routine.

      This is a legislation problem, not a police problem. The problem is “voters” themselves. Not the police. Bernie bro politicians say things like “guns are the problem” and it provides a means for individuals that don’t have their shit together to shirk taking any real responsibility of their actions and instead blame guns. Then those “voters” lap that shit right up.

      As far as drugs, I would be all for you taking whatever drugs you would like. It’s not my business. The problem is, drugs are very addictive, and addicts do things like commit crimes to fund their addiction. So the driver of those crimes is addiction. And the driver of addiction is those drugs. Thus, drugs are the problem. Further, even if the drugs were cheap and readily available, they wouldn’t be free, and so we don’t know how much burglary and theft would reduce by cheapening the cost of such drugs. Lastly, for a lot of drugs, the users of such drugs lose their grasp on reality, and their moral compass. That is the biggest problem with drugs, otherwise nobody would care. When you figure out how to solve those problems, then we can talk about removing prohibition.

      Removal of the prohibition laws will heavily decrease police interactions with the public and greatly reduce the prison population.

      If they can’t do as simple a task as staying off drugs, why would we want them not in prison? My nephew is a severe drug addict. Prison is the safest and most productive place for him. He will not overdose there, and he can still partake in activities that make his life meaningful.

      Republicans refuse to follow the constitution and the human rights of all peoples.

      Gross generalization with no details. Disagree.

      They do immense harm to their cause or what they claim is their cause.

      Gross generalization. No examples.

      Democrats are starting to look more like the party of less authoritarian police efforts aka jackboot thugs.

      Democrats are the party of less authoritarian police efforts, until they are in power. Then they will fully embrace the jackboot thugs. How else can you enforce – “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” In order for you to extract my abilities for your needs, you have to enforce it, against my non-complaince.

      Liberal Republicans are pushing society further away from militias and private security with their support for the department of police and a standing military empire.

      I’m all for “less government.” But that is NOT the democrats. That’s for sure. Further, their support for police is escalating, because the police response to mass looting, arson, and vandalism and burglary, were grossly underperforming. The problem isn’t their support for police, or police brutality, or a police state. It is simply to address the mass looting, arson, vandalism, burglary, and riots and assault, that has been going on unabated.

      Democrats are trying to balance themselves on a fine line of being pro big government and no police.

      Yeah that’s not going to work out. They are not mutually exclusive. They depend upon one another.

      Defund the police is their current strategy.

      It’s a stupid idea. Who is going to address the looting, arson, vandalism, burglary, riots, blocking of roads, assaults, murders? It’s a stupid idea.

      If they were to actually do what they say, that would move society more towards being pro 2A and anti war.

      Absolutely disagree. Democrats are vehemently anti-2A. Historically, currently, and they look forward to a gun-free future of conformance.

      However, the establishment/corporate Democrats can’t allow that to happen because it hurts their profits and power dynamic.

      Disagree. I have not ever seen an independent faction of democrats who unequivocally support the 2A. Historically. Currently. Never seen or heard of these people.

      That’s why Biden and Kamala want to give more money to the police. The politicians always need law enforcement to enforce their rules, without them they are powerless Karens shouting into the wind.

      I believe Biden and Kamala want to provide more police funding because, even to them, the “defund the police” movement is absurd on it’s face. If the democrats are going to usher in the socialist utopia, they are going to need police on their side to do it.

      Americans have been conditioned into submission to authority figures. They fool themselves into thinking they have liberty.

      American’s have more liberty than any other nation. There is no nation of people that protests and breaks laws more than Americans. There is no nation with a people so culturally inclined to take action against perceived government transgressions than the American people.

      Republicans have the hardest time with the cognitive dissonance, so it makes sense Republicans would be mostly of the older generations.

      Gross generalization. No examples given for republicans with cognitive dissonance. Because people are old they suffer from cognitive dissonance = nonsequitur.

      Republicans’ feelings are greatly hurt when you point out their contradictions.

      No valid contradictions supplied.

      They get very defensive. Yet they shout on about masks and how property owners have no rights.

      Disagree. They are not any more defensive than a leftist that can’t reconcile the concept of communism requiring police, or complain about masks and property rights to a leftist that can’t envision a reality where freedom is prioritized over safety.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Great post, well reasoned.

        Not that I agree with everything, but still, clear and brief points.

        But I do directly disagree with one aspect:

        You suggest the issue of masks is:

        “freedom is prioritized over safety”

        To put it more accurately, you are prioritizing your freedom over my safety.

        Your rights end at the tip of my nose.

        Until you can guarantee that you are not exhaling a pathogen into my breathing space, you need to wear a mask.

        With 180,000 new infections per day in the US, it is reasonable to be convinced by the evidence that there is a good chance of any particular individual having a contagious form of the disease.

        It’s the same concept of secondhand smoke, it’s fine for you to inhale if you like but the moment you exhale into my (or any other person’s) breathing space, you have reached my rights with your life-threatening toxics.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          You suggest the issue of masks is:

          “freedom is prioritized over safety”

          To put it more accurately, you are prioritizing your freedom over my safety.

          I’m suggesting that people that prioritize freedom over safety will prioritize their freedom over each other’s safety. Everyone’s freedom over everyone’s safety.

          Until you can guarantee that you are not exhaling a pathogen into my breathing space, you need to wear a mask.

          I can’t guarantee this even when I’m wearing a mask. What kind of mask? A homemade cotton one? A surgical mask? An N95 mask? A tychem 9000 dupont biohazard suit? And now we get to my point. Prioritizing freedom over safety means everyone is less safe and has more freedom. That includes you sucking in my pathogens floating in the air, or picking them up off a handrail or a public door handle. Everyday we sacrifice safety for freedom. One of the leading causes of death are road accidents. Yet we all go get in the road and share that space with each other. Likewise, we all walk around in public and touch door knobs and handrails and breathe each other’s vapors, and even a mask isn’t going to stop the risk. The only way you completely eliminate the risk of dying on the road, is if no one is driving on the road. Yet you don’t demand others stop driving on the road. And so your request that others wear a mask is too much a demand for people that prefer freedom over safety, which is why they are refusing. That “Your rights end at the tip of my nose” is not accurate. Pathogens are floating out there. It’s your job not to breathe them, not my job to ensure they don’t exist. This is the argument of someone that would prioritize freedom above safety.

        2. avatar Umm . . . says:

          Very well stated, except for “That ‘Your rights end at the tip of my nose’ is not accurate.”

          His statement was perfectly correct. He just failed to follow it through to its logical conclusion: that he has every right to hang a mask on the tip of his own nose, and zero right to demand one on yours or mine.

  8. avatar Warlocc says:

    I mean, he’s not wrong.

    Assuming for a minute we ever get a politician-say, Biden- that bans guns, he’s not going to come to your door. Police are. So there’s definitely an argument to be made that police are not our friends.

    If you subscribe to the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing, then this argument holds up.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      The “Indians” joined with the Europeans whom were murdering them to stop the King from invading with his army from Europe. Then the US resumed the genocide of the Indians once they defeated the King. It could have been a good ending all around, but some people are just greedy like that.

      1. avatar buzz off says:

        Most of the Native Americans joined up with the French to fight the British and colonists, and then they turned around and joined up with British to fight against the rebel colonists.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          His knowledge base is somewhat defective.

      2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        The Indians sided with the Plymouth colonists because Squanto had been a captive in England and knew about their power so sold them as a great ally to Massasoit, leader of the Wampanoag confederacy, to fend off the Narraganset. The Indians tried to use the colonists as much as the other way around.

        1. avatar G says:

          You need to lay off the sauce….. your ignorance is showing….

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          You need to lay off the sauce….. your ignorance is showing….

          You provided no refuting evidence, or even a reasonable argument. Your ignorance is showing.

      3. avatar anonymous says:

        The “Indians” joined with the Europeans whom were murdering them to stop the King from invading with his army from Europe. Then the US resumed the genocide of the Indians once they defeated the King. It could have been a good ending all around, but some people are just greedy like that.

        What genocide? The Indian’s that attacked the vastly advanced colonizers were eradicated. Many of the indians joined the culture of the colonizers and fully assimilated. Many were moved from place to place, voluntarily and forcefully, due to the threat of the much advanced arriving colonizers. It’s a lot more complicated than just “genocide” which is not accurate.

        1. avatar anonymous says:

          The “Indians” joined with the Europeans whom were murdering them to stop the King from invading with his army from Europe. Then the US resumed the genocide of the Indians once they defeated the King. It could have been a good ending all around, but some people are just greedy like that.

          What genocide? The Indian’s that attacked the vastly advanced colonizers were eradicated. Many of the indians joined the culture of the colonizers and fully assimilated. Many were moved from place to place, voluntarily and forcefully, due to the threat of the much advanced arriving colonizers. It’s a lot more complicated than just “genocide” which is not accurate.

  9. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “Is the issue with law enforcement really about under-enforcement?”

    IMO, that’s a *no*.

    Resources simply don’t (and won’t) exist for expanding the police state. While some (read, Leftists) would *love* to see a policeman on every corner, the liberty-minded folks absolutely do *not*…

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      If there was police on every corner the government wouldn’t need a spy network. The government wouldn’t need to have cameras and Karens.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        chief…Even if cops are on every corner they cannot be by your side 24/7. It is up to you to take up the slack until the police arrive. I mean crime happens fast and seconds count. And of course pompous gun control zealots will be where pompous gun control zealots always are during a violent crime…NOWHERE.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        If there was police on every corner the government wouldn’t need a spy network. The government wouldn’t need to have cameras and Karens.

        We’ll already have that when the Bernie bros take over. Bernie bros will need overwhelming police presence in order to enforce “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” Anyone who doesn’t want to play such a stupid game, will need to be arrested and placed in a slave labor camp where they will then contribute “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

  10. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Loud mouth drama queens marching around having a tantrum throwing contest over the actions of a few bad cops are nothing more than useful idiots for the democRat Party.

    Unfortunately most Black Americans belong to the democRat Party. This is the eight wonder of the world how a Race of people once beat down and enslaved and treated like plow mules could ever belong to the party of their tormentors and turn against the Party that fought for their freedom. America cannot continue being silent about its gullible Black Residents who remain on the plantation and have their heads buried deep in demoCrap.

    Let bygones be bygones may work for a schoolhouse argument but for slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK, Lynching, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based democRat Party atrocities it does not.

    Bottom line…A Black American belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as a Jew belonging to the nazi party.

  11. avatar Prndll says:

    Perhaps if everyone were armed, there would be little if any need for police.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      But! If there is no police, who is going to tell you what to do as an adult? That’s too scary. We need people to order us around or shot us for not complying.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Or maybe there would be mob dispensed justice.

      1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        Maybe but anyone who values freedom is willing to take that risk. Like when carrying of guns passed the cry was blood in the streets! Now its limiting the police and it’s the same cry. This too will pass.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Moron, mob justice is antithesis of freedom but you don’t know that because, well, you are a moron.

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    I just can’t stand Black people.

    1. avatar Geoff "Trolls, the other white meat" PR says:

      And that is *not* the real Deborah.

      You’re getting sloppy in your attempted impersonations, son… 😉

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Yeah, Debbie would never capitalize a common noun unless it was at the beginning of a sentence. She has Elements of Style beside her when she composes;-)

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        Actually, according to the latest release of the AP style guide, black is supposed to be capitalized; white is not.

  13. avatar EricO says:

    Conservatives these days are little more than yesterday’s Tories, and worse, buy the exact same losing arguments heard at the Nuremburg trials when police use them: doing my job enforcing the law. SCOTUS legislating from the bench is bad (if it’s abortion), but awesome when it’s “qualified immunity” – which is reminiscent of King George’s Coercive Acts which forbade the colonists from prosecuting Red Coats. We see several cases where for little more than a broken tail light, or acting suspicious, police can murder their fellow citizen; how many Boston Massacres will conservatives tolerate? As many as it takes to repurpose the American flag into their own little blue lives false patriotism while they excuse massive Constitutional violations. I don’t blame Blue Coats for being who they are, I blame them for lying under oath when promising to defend the Constitution.

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      The first sentence was the exact opposite of the truth. I suspect the rest was no better.

      1. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

        Wow that really struck home with you. Sucks when you get called out for what you are.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    One can protest against police brutality without being “anti-police”. I remember during one (daytime!) protest after George Floyd, there was some little skater antifa (white) punk using a hammer on the sidewalk to get concrete for throwing. Some actual protesters (black, as it happens) picked his skinny ass up and threw him at the police so they could lock him up.

    I imagine most 2nd A supporters are against what they perceive as police brutality while supporting some form of law enforcement. These two things need not be in contradiction. Although if you claim to want to defund\disband the police AND you don’t believe citizens should have guns you better be the biggest, strongest person in the area because otherwise you will be doing whatever he says.

  15. avatar tdiinva says:

    This article is nonsense unless you are a faux Libertarian. The objective of the defund the police movement goes hand in hand with disarming the general population. They seek rule by the woke mob. The last thing they want is for the citizenry to stand in their way.

  16. avatar Mudhunter says:

    Lot of interesting comments on the legitimacy of police departments
    I’m going to have to research that. Could someone explain how a high sheriff doesn’t run rough shod over sovereign cities jurisdictions?

    What if a city wants to have specially trained citizens, perhaps something like full time minutemen to police in the sense they enforce the rights of citizens as their primary function, and deal with arrests, bringing people before judges or arbitrators to settle disputes, or criminal charges where one citizen violated the rights of another (for instance, theft of property)?

    My primary goal in regard to law enforcement, is that the supreme law of the law is not only obeyed by them, it is enforced by them. Ie my rights supersede your super sensitive emotions or hoplophobia. And politicians trying to violate the constitution go to jail. And secondary would be to help bring to justice those who harm others.

    As to gun owners and Marxists being on the same team. I don’t think so, not in America at least. I think most gun owners know this country is unique. They may not be able to articulate why they get to own guns without interference in most cases, but they know its part of our American heritage. Generally I would say they believe everybody gets to participate in that. The Marxists are only interested in being able to have guns to stir up chaos and further their cause. They have no interest in other peoples liberty.

    If the shtf, we would be on opposite sides.

    As to defending the police, I can go along with it in cases of pay to play for conceal carry permits in California. That’s not law enforcement, that’s crime enforcement. But that does not put me on the same side as a marxist, because our agendas are different.

    Likewise, if police enforce “laws” against easy or not so easy to open knives in NYC and ruin peoples lives, that should be defunded. That serves no public good whatsoever. But that doesn’t put me on the same side as a Marxist. They want chaos, and I want to have a more peaceable city where the police sees citizens as kind of extra extended family instead of potential criminals.

    There certainly a lot of room for improvement.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      The Marxists want chaos in the short term. When they get to power, they will clamp down on the chaos and sent all identified participants to camps for “re-education”.

  17. avatar ACAB says:

    Why is this surprising? The constitution was written to protect us from government tyranny. Police corruption is one thing people from diverse groups can agree on: The blm, antifa, neo nazis, the 2a community, etc. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from, they’re only the good guys until they’re not. There’s an old saying that a liberal is just a conservative until he’s been mugged, the same logic applies to the police. A lot of people out there who at one time thought they deserved respect who no longer do, and with good reason. Those cop shows? All gone, and with good reason. They were edited by the police departments before anything was aired. You only saw what they wanted you to see. Stopping violent maniacs, helping puppies and driving lost kids to school. That’s not reality. It’s been 30 years of copaganda and it’s going to take forever to undo the damage.

    It’s the system they’ve set up. Two/three months of “training”, police unions protecting them, zero accountability (when something goes wrong, the taxpayers foot the bill), the skyrocketing rates of domestic violence among them, trampling all over our fourth and fifth amendment rights, siphoning a gazillion dollars a year from programs that we actually need so they can just beat people up, and just straight up lying in court. There’s no such thing as a good cop because the good ones defend the bad ones. They do not report anything, which makes them an accessory. The ones who have spoken up and made reports were fired (or worse). The mafia has omerta and the police have the blue wall of silence, at the end of the day the only difference is a badge. Best thing to do is arm yourself because they are not going to help you.

    1. avatar Dave G. says:

      ACAB:
      “There’s an old saying that a liberal is just a conservative until he’s been mugged, the same logic applies to the police.”

      I think you got that backwards. The way I heard the “old saying” was the other way around.

  18. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Police have no duty to protect you as an individual and no liability if they don’t. Almost their only duty is when you’re in custody. Want to be protected by the police? Get arrested.

    The truth is the police will act strictly in THEIR interests, yours be damned, be it your rights or your life. If some Marxist mayor tells them to let some psychopath in a mask and a black hoodie beat you to do death with a skateboard or a bike lock, that cop will cheerfully stand there and watch you get murdered… so long as the pay and pension checks continue to clear.

    Protect yourself or don’t get protected at all. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      “Police have no duty to protect you as an individual and no liability if they don’t…”

      There are duties other than civil liabilities.

      That said, when politicians, prosecutors and judges (that’s somewhat redundant) will imprison cops if they do their job, they will do less of it.

      I’m afraid the only reasonable solution is to avoid living in such places. That nonsense in Lancaster was nipped in the bud the first night because the cops were able to do their job and the DA\judge didn’t just let the rioters walk out of jail.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        “There are duties other than civil liabilities.”

        A duty that can’t be enforced is no duty at all. It’s an illusion, worse a delusion.

        If you don’t believe me, ask the survivors of the victims of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas massacre.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        They will only do less of it against certain people. If you’re not going to stop lawless offensive violence, but then you turn around and arrest anyone lawfully defending themselves against said violence, you’re a piece of shit. I’d be 100% ok with it if cops simply and openly pulled entirely out of a given area. Tell the mayor “ok if you won’t let us do our jobs then we won’t even pretend to do so”, and I would vigorously cheer such an action. The rioters wouldn’t last long, the surviving rioters would think twice in the future, the mayor would have a political shitstorm of his own making to deal with, and the righteous would be able to defend themselves from the wicked without consequence.

        Also when was the last time a cop was imprisoned for doing his job? We can’t even lock up those who carry out extra-judicial executions on camera so you’ll forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical that such a threat is really faced by righteous officers

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          The only reason that a lot of Antifa and BLM are alive is because the police are there to protect THEM.

          Go ahead and defund/disband (rather than strictly discipline) the police. What that does is remove the biased protection mechanism from violent aggressors attacking people with actual knowledge and experience of military and para-military action.

          Let me say it again: If you want to play Spartacist, you’re giving your victims license to play Freikorps. Eventually, you’ll end up playing Rosa Luxemburg.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          From what I have seen Antifa has a lot guys who want to play Rosa.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Agreed. When it boils down to it, they are red coats. It would be a chaotic world without “law and order”, but freedom is the opposite of both those… so pick one.

  19. avatar Lance says:

    On its face, this is true.

    The thing is Gun rights advocates and anti-police brutality protestors have very different ideas on how to air their grievances and what they believe the problem is regarding enforcement of laws. The weird thing is the police were/are the main thing stopping anyone not on the left from metaphorically and literally going ballistic on Antifa and BLM.

    But I’m sure the anti gun left will attempt to butter up to the police and pretend none of that “Defund the police” mattered when they pass more gun regulation.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Marxists don’t “butter up”.

      Marxists THREATEN.

      Rest assured that any cop who enforces the law against Antifa/BLM contrary to the wishes of a DeBlasio or Wheeler is going to be threatened with loss of his paycheck and pension check.

      Have no doubt, to the average cop, his paycheck and pension mean WAY more to him than your rights, and indeed your life. To a large extent, modern policing is analogous to the hiring and use of mercenaries during the Thirty Years War. As long as (and ONLY so long as) the checks clear, the cops will do whatever they’re told, your rights and your life be damned.

  20. avatar rt66paul says:

    Particularity when the government(like here in Ca) tells L.E. that they are special, they can have their choice of many guns that the citizenry are not allowed.
    Just include L.E. in “guns for me, not for thee” and they will do as they are told.

  21. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

    The police should not exsist in their current form along with the other standing armies the Founders of this country warned us about.

    It’s sad so many of you prefer slavery under the false pretense of “safety”.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Freedom for must mean release from your mama’s basement.

  22. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Defund ANTIFA and BLM

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      If the FBI wasn’t utterly corrupt, that would have been done long ago.

      Imagine what WWII would have been like if Fritz Kuhn had been FBI director, and William Joyce director of MI5.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    I have nothing in common with the “defund” mob except a distrust of police. In fact, I want the police to be well-funded so they can attract better candidates and train them properly. Too many cops are ignorant bullies. Police departments can do better — but not if they can’t hire better people or train them properly.

    You get what you pay for. Defunding just makes things worse.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I think you’re right but it’s too late. It’ll take many years, probably decades to undo what has been done since about 2012. Maybe it’ll never be undone and instead cities (especially) will have to get used to a level of policing the media has made them think they have. Instead they’ll try to rely on more and more dodgy technology (shotspotter, cameras, etc).

      Can robocop be racist? Someone look into that, Detroit is going to need to know.

    2. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Police funding ought to be redirected… to Internal Affairs.

      1. If you kick in the door at an address different than what the warrant shows, that should be grounds for INSTANT termination, no appeals, followed by criminal prosecution for assault, breaking and entering and anything else that reasonably fits.

      2. If you don’t turn on your body cam or turn it off during an encounter, that should be grounds for immediate termination and prosecution for obstruction of justice and or evidence tampering. Likewise, refusal to identify or false identification should be grounds for termination and prosecution for obstruction.

      3. Making a materially false statement verbally or in writing, against a citizen, especially in retaliation, should be grounds for immediate termination and prosecution for obstruction and perjury.

      Consider this example: https://youtu.be/aczEq8Sian4

      What did that cop get away with before somebody finally stood up to him on video, and was willing to risk imprisonment and loss of employment to do it? There are WAY too many cops like him, getting away with WAY too much.

  24. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Gun rights supporters are definitely not on the same side as the BLM/ANTIFA “peaceful protestors” / thugs who have been vandalizing, looting, burning and assaulting with an occasional assassination of their political opponents. If the Harris/Biden administration aggressively pursues their avowed agenda and the police are willing to employ deadly force to impose that agenda, gun rights supporters will be making their paranoid fantasies about being outgunned by the criminals come true. Given the eagerness with which most of the governors of the several States have exploited the Chinavirus pandemic as a pretext to assert dictatorial authority to destroy people’s lives and livelihoods, few people will condemn them.

  25. avatar JOLJ says:

    It is not LEO’s, but Lawyer that are fighting the 2A, most of them in Congress!

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      There are plenty of anti-gun (for anybody but them) cops.

      I once stood in a Milan, Ohio gunstore while a couple of cops discussed how ALL private sales should be banned. Funnily enough, they owned the gunstore…

  26. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “So if I’m reading this correctly, it would seem Leider believes the defund the police crowd has an interest in the right to bear arms?” – Not reading it correctly at all. It merely says that the two groups should be on the same side of the issue at hand, police authority. This article makes an incorrect assumption (switching from the issue the TCR article addresses to the issue the author wants to opine on) and then criticizes it because the source it cites doesn’t say what this author thinks it should.🙄

  27. avatar Ron says:

    Antifa and BLM are both terrorist organizations and should be dealt with as such.

  28. avatar tdiinva says:

    We have already run the less policing experiment and the results aren’t pretty. But wait, says the LARPErs living inside the TTAG bubble, armed citizens will do the job and do it better! Well, no you won’t nor are you likely to do it at all. You have things to do and places to be and one them is not out patrolling the streets in a cold rain. The first time a couple of gangsters murders one your citizen patrollers you will run for the safety of your basement. You are an amateur doing a part time job out of the goodness of your heart. The bad guys are pros whose job is murder and mayhem. Pros always beat amateurs. What you will end up doing is paying some criminal gang protection money and hoping they will honor the deal and not turn on you. Good luck with that.

    There is myth in the gun community that militia won the Revolutionary War. The reality is that the militia was a failure. The militia at Yorktown did nothing and there were actually more French troops than Americans; and those Americans were not amateurs but professionals trained under the direction of a Prussian Colonel. The Militia failed again in the war of 1812 and they failed in their last attempt 20 years later in the Blackhawk Wars. They were never replied on again.

    We don’t live in a primitive rural society any more and that includes those living the sticks. Babbling that “we didn’t have police forces 200 years ago” show a profound ignorance of the changes in society over the last 250 years.

  29. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

    I consider myself a fairly rabid 2A defender (one might almost call me a 2A absolutist), but I “agree” with many on the Left that:

    1. No-knock warrants should be outlawed. NEVER is there a reason for a “no-knock” warrant.

    2. Not the police’s fault, but our benevolent gummint has criminalized things that had no business being criminalized. It behooves those on our side of the argument to understand the distinction between “malum in se”, and “malum prohibitum”. Once the law is on the books, the police will USUALLY enforce it, no matter how stupid it is. Keep that in mind.

    3. At least in my experience (and I used to hang out with a LOT of cops), cops have a VERY “us vs. them” view of the world. Sample quote: “There are only three kinds of people in the world: Cops, scumbags and civilians. Everyone other than cops are useless, but at least most civilians aren’t scumbags.” Literally said to me by a cop (who knew I was a civilian, and apparently didn’t give a s***.). And they wonder why we distrust them??

    4. It probably is mostly the upper echelons, who are political as hell, but police departments have chosen sides. When they will respond to “stand down” orders about people looting and burning civilian property? They need to go find a new job.

    5. Sovereign/qualified immunity needs to die, RTF now. It is ENTIRELY a judge-made doctrine (but has since been enshrined in legislation various places). If it would be illegal for me to do it, or subject you to liability, why shouldn’t the same be true for the cops??? Sure, they have a tough job. Cry me a river. Screw “sovereign immunity” or “qualified immunity”. EVERY politician and EVERY LEO should be subject to EXACTLY the same laws, court system and justice that any civilian would. And police unions can go suck my hemhorroids.

    Now, the fact that I hold these views DOES NOT mean that I agree with Antifa/BLM on ANYTHING . . . except the exact statements I made above (to the extent THEY actually believe any of that). Also, “The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. The enemy of my enemy is merely the enemy of my enemy.” Don’t get sucked into that whole, “we agree on this issue, so we’re on the same side!”. Screw dat. I am on the “same side” as Antifa/BLM on exactly NOTHING.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Way too many cops think it’s 1914, this is Belgium, they’re the Kaiser’s army, and we’re all “francs tireurs”.

      If you act like a hostile army of occupation, only a idiot is surprised to be treated like one.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        The occupying Army meme is faux Libertarian/Anitfa/BLM BS.

        As of 1745 CST Friday 27 Nov, the score in Chicago is 3850 to 17. The police are not shooting of the inner city. The residents are.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          The police in many places act like the Japanese in China.

          The police union narrative is that as long as they don’t actually KILL you it’s no harm, no foul. It’s ok to harass, falsely arrest, beat, and even shoot you as long as they don’t KILL you (on camera).

          While I have only contempt for Antifa and BLM, I have equal contempt for police unions which serve EXACTLY the same function for thugs with badges that BLM serves for young, Black, male felons and NAMBLA for child rapists.

          It’s not Antifa kicking in the doors of innocent people and pointing M4s at toddlers. It’s the Chicago PD, aka “Blue Antifa”.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Except the body count doesn’t seem to match your impression. Have you ever been to Eastern Europe during the Cold War or China? There were no gangbangers shooting out in the streets. Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about.

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          You’re still pushing the same dishonest FOP narrative that as long as they don’t KILL you (on camera) it’s no harm, no foul. To hear you tell it, Emma Hernandez, Margie Carranza, David Perdue, Charles Kinsey and Carolina Obrycka have nothing to complain about.

        4. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          “It’s OK for the police to kill innocent people as long as they only kill a few.” – tdiinva

    2. avatar Mudhunter says:

      I think you hit the nail square on the head.

      I think a cop that sees themselves outside the realm of specially trained/authorized citizen FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS, they have either been trained wrong or made wrong assumptions.

      Police training should start with extensive mental analysis to determine they are not a bully wanting a gun, and then receive extensive constitutional history and rights studies to make sure they understand what takes priority in enforcing laws. If they don’t want this rights oriented approach, then don’t take the job.

      I doubt any kind of alliance between the constitutionalists and marxists could ever be achieved. The beliefs of Marxism include the idea that anything that promotes it is truth, even if it is actually a lie or incorrect information. They are about chaos, destroying families, promoting evolution, denying God or absolute truths and revolution, we are about protection/regaining rights and personal liberty and being able to achieve/fail/succeed without government’s nose up our butts. So 2 steps forward, 1 step back is ok with them. I prefer 10 steps backwards, get out of my country and move to Cuba. I’ll help them pack/get to the dock/airport.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Why would either of you think cops arexany different than any other profession or social group. Soldiers, sailors, spies, teachers, doctors or lawyers act the same way. How do you think a group of truck drivers would act if you sat down with them at a truck stop?

        It all comes down to “there are two kinds of ships — submarines and targets.”

        1. avatar Mudhunter says:

          I’ve actually sat down to eat with truckers quite often.
          They are just ordinary people. They don’t have an us vs me mentality. They have a variety of opinions and attitudes about life, their job, and other people. Some are nice, some are horrible. But they never made feel like a target.

          Cops are just people, but proper vetting and training would get the right kind of people you would want going around your city with authority from the citizenry. A cop that thinks they are a submarine is nothing but a bully.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          It still a closed club trust me, my father was trucker.

          I spent six months as an Intel liaison at the FBI and with a lot of agents. They talk differently when they are alone than when an outsider is among them.

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          * Truckers don’t get to run random people off of the road and then claim it was for “trucker safety”.
          * Truckers don’t get to pull people off the road and search their vehicles at gunpoint because they “fit the description” (Black man in a vehicle?).
          * Truckers don’t get to ram innocent drivers then abjure all responsibility, claiming “qualified immunity”.
          * Truckers don’t get to shoot up or ram vehicles of innocent people because they’re “scared”.
          * Truckers don’t get to falsely accuse people of mental illness and drug abuse and slander and falsely arrest anyone who stands up for their victims.

          Equating cops who have VASTLY more power to not just do harm to innocents, but to cover up that harm and to evade all responsibility for it, to those in other professions, is like comparing Ted Bundy to the guy who yelled at his wife because dinner was cold. There’s simply no comparison. If you don’t believe it just ask:

          * Kathryn Johnston
          * Carolina Obrycka
          * Emma Hernandez
          * Margie Carranza
          * David Perdue
          * Charles Kinsey
          * Levar Jones
          * John Yadollahi

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email