No, to me it is not a question of fundamentals that often degenerate into soundbites. The article discusses specific policy instituted by specific agencies for specific purposes. From my point of view, if we want to bring about any change from the status quo, we need to focus on these specific policies. So, no, the conversation is not about something so ethereal as police state vs. free state.
More fundamentally the conversation is about the difference between a police-state and the free state of the second amendment. That difference is why the citizenry are the armed forces of a free state.
Otherwise, it becomes how to make a more perfect police-state. In a free state, it's not about who should be policing us, it's about making sure no one else is.
The purpose of the police is to prevent the lynchings that characterize a lawless society. A lawless society has no criminals. They are immediately killed...or worse, along with others who are suspected to be criminals.
< -- The message is truncated. -- >
--- Sent with mail@metro, Real Life Real Time Mobile ---
Sent: 7/5/2013 11:47 am
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Ã¯Â»Â¿Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming them
Well, John and Starchild, no one is naive about "bad cops" or having "a blind spot." What I would love to see, as I have said a gazillion times on this list, is more reasoned, objective discussion. Speaking of which, I came across this article this morning, titled "How Did America's Police Become a Military Force on the Streets?", on the July 2013 issue of the ABA Journal Magazine.
A lot to read, and not as exciting as a two-minute video of a poor dog being shot dead; but good material to focus on specific problems with policing today -- federal funding probably being the most salient, in my opinion.
The article mainly focuses (eventually) on SWAT teams, and cautions that violent folks would be attracted to violent organizations, including SWAT. Here is an excerpt:
"Although there are plenty of anecdotes about bad cops, there are plenty of good cops. The fact is that we need cops, and there are limited situations in which we need SWAT teams. If anything, bad cops are the product of bad policy. And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops. The good ones will never enter the ï¬eld in the ï¬rst place, or they will become frustrated and leave police work, or they'll simply turn bad. At best, they'll have unrewarding, unfulï¬lling jobs. There are consequences to having cops who are too angry and too eager to kick down doors, and who approach their jobs with entirely the wrong mindset. But we need to keep an eye toward identifying and changing the policies that allow such people to become cops in the ï¬rst placeÂand that allow them to ï¬ourish in police work."
--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, "javlin@" <javlin@> wrote:
YES. alarm bells, civil defense sirens, claxtons, horns, flashing lights, red alerts, devcon max, church bells,.....Most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...most imprisoned nation...
Sent: 7/3/2013 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Ã¯Â»Â¿Re: VIDEO: Police shoot dog defending owner as cops arrested him for filming them
Excellent point. The nature of the police/prison system is indeed a blind spot with many Americans. The mere fact of the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate should be ringing alarm bells with anyone in the country who cares about freedom. Then when you dig a little deeper and realize that a significant portion of those individuals are basically political prisoners who have committed no real crimes against other persons or property, and another significant portion of those behind bars have not pled guilty to or been convicted of *anything* but are simply there because they are too poor to afford bail, as well as the degree to which police officers are profiling people, ignoring constitutional rights, using excessive force, and otherwise acting arrogantly and abusing their power -- people need to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt and taking their assertions about criminal justice matters at face value. In some cases a person with a police record clearly is individually at fault, but we can no longer assume this just from the fact of such a record existing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))