Now this guy is a peace officer. If the majority of LEO acted like the officer in this video we wouldn’t have the endemic copfuk problem that we have.
The Fuzz Archive
Be grateful she wasn’t raped by my officers he says; and with that we get a glimpse at the true nature of the copfuk. There is no accountability, they are nothing more than the blunt instrument of our owners, other than the few remaining peace officers they not only do not deserve respect or praise, they should be publicly humiliated, ostracized and accurately labeled as thugs and gangsters.
The Art Acevedo Defense: At Least My Minions Didn’t Rape Her
by: Will Grigg
Chief Art Acedevo of the Austin Police Department is like a figure from Roman history – in one of the worst ways imaginable. To be specific, his view of the privileges of the coercive elite, and the deferential gratitude they’re supposedly owed by the plebian class, summon memories of Cicero’s description of the aspiring ruler Marcus Antonius. In fact, Acevedo’s dismissive comments about the unjustified arrest and abuse of a female jogger displayed a tyrannical insouciance that Antonius might have considered a bit excessive.
After Cicero delivered the first of fourteen philippicsagainst Antonius in the Senate, the general invited public applause for the forbearance he displayed by allowing the orator to live. Cicero devoted a lengthy section of his second philippic to demolishing the would-be dictator’s pretense of magnanimity:
“That, senators, is what a favor from gangsters amounts to – they refrain from murdering someone, and then they boast of their kindness…. What sort of kindness is it, to have abstained from committing a horrible evil? To me, it doesn’t appear so much a favor as a burden, to know that it was within your power to do such a thing with impunity. But I grant that it was a favor, such no greater kindness can be expected from a robber.”
Like every other notable municipal police chief, Acevedo presides over a department that is notorious for committing acts of capricious violence against innocent people –and almost without exception he defends such crimes as suitable exercises of discretion by the punitive caste.
Women tend to be preferred targets in the ongoing APD crime wave. One suitable example was the case of Vanessa Price, who was unlawfully “detained” outside her home by Officer Jermaine Hopkins, and then brutally assaulted by him after she used her cell phone to call her husband for help. Hopkins then charged the victim – who had been observing a police encounter with an unruly house guest from a distance of roughly thirty feet — with “interference” and “resisting arrest.” The charges were dropped, and Hopkins – rather than being prosecuted for aggravated armed assault – was given a trivial suspension. Mrs. Price had to endure two months of expensive physical therapy to recover from the unprovoked attack.
Insisting that his conduct was exemplary, Hopkins appealed his suspension. He had the support of the local police union, the Austin Police Association. Sgt. Wayne Vincent, the APA’s spokesliar, insisted that Mrs. Price’s refusal to put down the phone constituted an impermissible threat to the “safety of the officer,” before which all considerations must yield.
Viewed in the context of the Austin PD’s established standards, the actions of the officers who assaulted and abducted jogger Amanda Jo Stephen as summary punishment for “contempt of cop” were comparatively mild. This is an indictment of the state-licensed gang over which Acedevo presides, not an endorsement of the behavior of this specific group of costumed kidnappers.
Blogger Chris Quintero, who captured the abduction on video, reports that the female victim had been jogging when members of the local slave patrol detained her and demanded that she present a “pass” from her master. The officers were carrying out a tax-farming operation at a busy intersection to mulct students for the supposed offense of “jaywalking,” and were feasting heartily on their victims when Stephen – who was listening to music while exercising — happened by.
When one of the officers laid hands on Stephen, the young woman — not knowing that corpulent stranger was a cop — jerked her arm away. After Stephen, who wasn’t operating a motor vehicle and wasn’t under arrest, refused to give her name, her captors illegally arrested her for the supposed offense of “failure to identify.” She was then shackled and hauled off screaming by a phalanx of well-nourished tax-feeders.
The public reaction to this crime was sufficiently vehement to provoke an effort at damage control by Acevedo, who used that opportunity to put on a display of contemptuous hostility toward the offended public. Indulging in the kind of stilted sarcasm we would expect from a spoiled adolescent, Acevedo suggested that Stephen should be abjectly grateful that she was spared being raped or killed by her uniformed betters:
“Thank you, Lord, that it’s a controversy in Austin Texas that we had the audacity to touch somebody by the arm and tell them, `Oh, my goodness, Austin Police – we’re trying to get your attention.’ In other cities, cops are actually committing sexual assaults on duty.”
Of course, if a Mundane “had the audacity to touch” a cop on the arm, this act of desecration would be described as “aggravated assault on an officer,” and the offender would most likely be tasered and beaten bloody. In this case, from Acedevo’s perspective, the female Mundane committed a crime when she shrugged off a physical advance from a member of the exalted brotherhood of official coercion: “Quite frankly, she wasn’t charged with resisting and she’s lucky I wasn’t the arresting officer because I wouldn’t have been as generous.”
A very similar view was expressed by Officer Adam Skweres of the Pittsburgh Police Department, a serial predator who was arrested and prosecuted for sexually assaulting a woman in her home. Skweres, who had attempted to violate at least three other victims, told one of them that if she put up a struggle, he could arrest her for “resisting.” That point of view isn’t limited to obvious sociopaths like Skweres. During oral arguments before the Michigan supreme court in October 2011, Gregory J. Babbitt, an assistant DA for Michigan’s Ottawa County, acknowledged that a woman who fought off a sexual assault committed by a state-privileged attacker could be prosecuted under the state’s “resisting and obstructing” statute.
Magdalena Mol, a young wife and mother, was detained without cause in the incongruously named village of Justice, Illinois on the night of May 5, 2012 by Officer Carmen Scardine.
At the time, Mol was waiting for a taxi to take her home after visiting a friend.
Scardine invited her into his car and demanded identification. When the cab arrived, the officer ordered the driver to leave. Scardine then drove Mol to a secluded spot and raped her. The assailant didn’t charge Mol with an offense – a gesture Chief Acevedo would probably treat as an act of regal generosity.
Acevedo was eventually compelled to issue an apology for his remarks, which he described as a “poor analogy.” In fact, Acevedo committed a “gaffe,” as that term was defined by Michael Kinsley – that is, the unwitting disclosure of an uncomfortable truth by a public official. Acevedo’s apology most likely reflected his regret for offending his comrades, rather than any remorse for mocking Amanda Jo Stephen and the outraged public.
Writing of the era in which Rome succumbed to undisguised tyranny, historian Edward Gibbon observed: “A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.”
Strangely enough, that was the same message Chief Acevedo sent, even if it wasn’t the one he had intended. If it were received and properly understood, Acevedo not only would lose his job, he would be run out of town – unless the population he addressed is worthy of the contempt he expressed.
The US(S)A is becoming more and more a fascist/socialist totalitarian police state each day. There are many who are more responsible than others. There are also those who proclaim it isn’t their fault because they work hard at their job (check), act kindly to their fellow human (check), provide for their families (check) and pay their taxes (WTF!?!?!?!?!).
Firstly, very few people pay taxes; the vast majority have them taken. And how in god’s name is paying taxes a good thing or part of being a good American?
If you are an US citizen your taxes are used to:
And go to perpetually fund alphabet agencies that make sure people are assaulted and prosecuted for smoking a plant and being arrested/assaulted and prosecuted because they are under the misconception that they own their own bodies:
And gold-plated benefit and retirement packages for government workers (drones):
If taxes feeds the beast/leviathon, does having them taken make someone a good person or a good American? Don’t construe it to think people that have their taxes stolen from from them are bad Americans (not just because I definitely fall into that category). This situation is more akin to being mugged on the street and then seeing in the news that the same mugger bought a gun that he used to kill innocent people. Each person is an individual that makes their own decisions but I would be lying if I would feel zero guilt for not having fought back to avoid the future outcome.
But in the spirit of the Founding Fathers, I’d argue that thinking it is good for a person to pay taxes (so-called fair share or otherwise) feeds the beast and validates the actions they commit with those funds and in turn does make that person a bad American.
“No-knock” raids are one of the stupidest and most fascist things copfuks do. And considering what they do it, that says a lot.
and his buddies went to serve a warrant regarding this man:
by not announcing themselves as police and storming his home. They received a tip from an informant who was being arrested about the suspect having some pot. Magee reacted by grabbing a firearm and using defensive force against his intruders. Pudgy was shot and killed so Magee was charged with murder.
I am surprised the rest of the pack didn’t execute him on the spot for daring to defend himself against unknown intruders but I am even more surprised with the decision to not indict him.
More than likely Magee is going to suffer dearly for having some pot plants but this time one of the pigfuks is a casualty of the pointless War On (some) Drugs.
Texas man cleared of killing detective who delivered no-knock warrant (VIDEO)
Henry Magee has been in prison since the Dec. 19, 2013 raid in which he shot and killed a detective who had burst into his home on a ‘no-knock’ warrant. A grand jury cleared him of charges related to the shooting this week. (Photo credit: Burleson County Sheriff’s Department)
When Henry Magee heard people burst into his Texas home before 6 a.m. on a Thursday morning in December, he grabbed his rifle, came face to face with an armed man, shot, and killed him.
It was only later that Magee found out that the man was Sgt. Adam Sowders, an investigator with the Burleson County Sheriff’s Department who was there serving a search warrant for drugs.
Now, seven weeks after the shooting, Magee has been cleared by a grand jury of all charges related to the detective’s death.
“This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was killed, but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed,” said Magee’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin Thursday.
“He did what a lot of people would have done. He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home,” continued DeGuerin. “When awakened by a loud boom and somebody’s kicking in the door, they defend themselves.”
The sheriff’s office had been granted a no-announcement warrant, popularly referred to as a ‘no-knock’ warrant. These rare orders are granted to allow law enforcement to enter into a suspect’s space without first knocking and announcing their presence to preserve the tactical advantage of surprise.
These types of warrants have been plagued by controversy in recent years. According to the Cato Institute, 40 bystanders have been killed since the early 1980s in no-knock warrants gone wrong.
Sgt. Adam Sowders, 31, had just been promoted in the months prior to the raid that took his life. (Photo credit: Burleson County Sheriff’s Department)
The warrant, according to an earlier story, had been issued on a tip from a police informant who had just been arrested.
A small amount of marijuana was, in fact, recovered at Magee’s home. For the illicit drugs, the same grand jury that cleared Magee on the shooting handed down an indictment for possession of marijuana while in possession of a deadly weapon, a third-degree felony.
Magee, 28, lived in a mobile home on County Road 278 near the rural community of Snook, some 90-miles from Houston. The community is so small that the families of both the Magee and Sgt. Sowders know each other.
Rest of story can be read HERE.
I make no bones about it, I can’t stand copfuks/pigfuks as well as their apologists, copsuckers. It wasn’t always that way but once I became a young adult I saw the majority of them for what they are, power hungry sociopaths. But I don’t want to not respect them, I don’t want to not respect anybody. But the power they yield, their reprehensible actions, their demand for a double standard and their paramilitary behavior require me to do so; in good moral conscience I cannot respect violent authoritarian gang members, which is what copfuks are.
If things changed as Eric Peters described below I will gladly revisit my stance on them, but I don’t plan on holding my breath.
A Step Back Toward Peace Keeping
by eric •
It goes without saying that’s all gone now. Cops are a menacing omnipresence – and when they deal with us, it is usually order barking Command Voice style. You do not discuss, much less dispute. You Submit and Obey. Or else.The least recalcitrance – merely to question anything – is often sufficient to bring down a Fallujah-style escalation. People are routinely dragged out of their cars, roughly thrown to the ground, pummeled, kicked – and much worse than that. Often, over trivial things. Police even in small towns have become indistinguishable from soldiers.
It is out of hand – obviously so – and if left unchecked will grow much worse, much sooner as the vortex picks up speed. What was inconceivable 20 years ago is routine today. What will be routine 20 years from today?
We face a choice: Either we accept being treated as “indigs” by an army of occupation that accepts no limits to its authority and which regards us as disposable as themselves as untouchable. Or we step back from the abyss before it’s too late. We recover our senses. We no longer accept the unacceptable.
Here’s how, in a few simple steps:
* Cops must be bound by the law -
As citizens, we are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That it is our obligation to know the law. Surely, the same ought to apply to those charged with enforcing it. Yet cops routinely ignore the law, even when it is pointed out to them in literal black and white. Many states, for example, have open carry laws. It is legal to wear a gun in plain view in public. Yet cops will often waylay at gunpoint, detain, disarm and question individuals who have done nothing in violation of any law – who are merely open carrying in full compliance with the letter of the law. They will justify this illegal assault by referencing “concerns” – either their own or those expressed by some unnamed person who “called in.”
Similarly, cops now routinely abuse people for lawfully taking video/audio in public. They will back each other up, too.
A cop must be as willing to defend legal action as he is prepared to defend against illegal action. This includes intervening against fellow officers when he knows they’ve committed a crime or are acting in a way that does not comport with the law. If it is intolerable for a citizen to break the law, it is doubly so when a cop does – because he may do so with relative impunity.
Until the doctrine is established and respected that the law applies equally to everyone, including cops, there will be increasingly less and less respect for cops – who increasingly hold themselves above the law.
And us in contempt.
* The Right to Resist -
Self-defense is perhaps the most basic human right, without which other rights are largely meaningless. One of the worst abuses of our era is the denial of this elemental right when a physical assault is perpetrated by a person acting under color of law. If a cop does not have the legal right to lay hands on a citizen, to violate his personal space (including his personal property) then the citizen has every ethical right to resist. To walk away – and to defend himself against aggression if he is aggressed against.
His legal right to resist must be acknowledged in law.
That means if a SWAT team got the wrong house number and executes a no-knock raid in the middle of the night, the sleeping (and innocent) citizen should be considered within his rights to defend his home and himself, even if it results in the unfortunate death of a cop.
The burden is on the cops who got it wrong – not the citizen who acted out of justifiable fear for his life.
If a cop attempts to seize your person or things without legal cause, you ought to be able – legally – to defend yourself to the extent necessary. If citizens witness out-of-control cops administering a beat-down, they have the same right to intervene that would obtain if they witnessed a gang of thugs beating on an innocent.
Special costumes and badges should not render the wearer a member of a privileged caste whose person may not be touched even when they have crossed the line and committed an act that if committed by any other person would be defined as criminal.
This business of demanding supine submission to every barked order is unworthy of a free society. It is in fact a mortal threat to a free society.
Cops must be reminded they’re not special. That our “safety” is just as valuable to us as their “safety” is to them. And that if they go after someone physically, they’d better have good – defensible – cause. And if they do not, that their victim has every legal right to defend himself – and will not be punished for having done so.
This doctrine, once established, would re-establish a balance that has been lost – and which must be recovered.
* Personal Liability -
Ordinary citizens are vulnerable to civil suits when their reckless or criminal actions result in harm/damage to others or their property. They are personally liable. This acts as a strong incentive to be prudent, to act responsibly. The same incentives are vitally necessary to assure police restraint, curb the worst abuses – and effectively deal with those who do abuse their authority.
As things stand, the reverse is true.
Cops have every incentive to not behave prudently, to act recklessly – since they know that any consequences will probably not be born by them directly. They will not lose their house, have their wages garnished for the next 20 years. If there is a lawsuit, the county – the taxpayers – will pay. The cop may not even lose his job. And if he does, there will be probably be a new job in another county, another state.
This cannot continue.
All police must be held personally liable for gross misconduct. Knowing that violating someone’s rights could lead to the loss of everything is just what’s needed to keep cops from violating people’s rights. Anything that insulates police from being held personally accountable is an open invitation to ever-greater escapades of abuse. We expect much more in terms of personal accountability from airline pilots – whose careers can be ended at a stroke if the faintest whiff of alcohol is detected on their breath.Doctors have to self-insure against malpractice – and may be sued into ruin if they botch an operation. Surely, those entrusted with lethal weapons and legal power to use them ought to be held to a comparable level of personal accountability.
Most of us manage to behave ourselves – and never find ourselves on the wrong end of a civil suit. Surely, it is not asking too much to ask cops to behave with similar restraint – and to be held personally accountable when they do not.
As cops so often advise us: If they haven’t done anything wrong, then they’ve got nothing to worry about.
* Higher standard for use of deadly force -
It is an awesome responsibility to carry a gun. To threaten its use even more so – and to actually use it, an irrevocable act that is acceptable only in the most extreme circumstances and which ought to be subject to rigorous scrutiny afterward.This is the standard applied to civilians.
Why should it not apply to police?
Cops ought to be held to a standard at least as high as that expected of ordinary citizens – and arguably, to a much higher standard. This in fact used to be the case. Unholstering a gun was regarded as a major escalation requiring objective justification – as in, an imminent lethal threat. Cops today have become all too trigger-happy (as evidenced by the recent case of cops blasting away at a van full of kids because the mother/driver fled a traffic stop).
“Officer Safety” cannot be a license to kill. Cops must relearn restraint. And when they cannot restrain themselves, the law must restrain them as fully, as completely as any mere citizen.
No more double standards.
No more “special rights.”
It would be a start.
Throw it in the Woods?
Will Grigg with more on the pigfuks that got away with murder as well as the ex-pigfuk defending his life after being assaulted with noise and popcorn.
Remember, the copfuks are out there to serve and protect you.
“Among other lessons we’ve learned in this trial,” pontificated Judge William Froeberg just before a jury acquitted Kelly Thomas’s killers, “is that violence begets violence.”
This statement was either a conscious lie, or a symptom of incurable ideological blindness. The murderous violence directed at Kelly Thomas by a half-dozen police officers was unilateral, unprovoked, and utterly unjustified. It wasn’t begotten by anything Thomas had done, or failed to do. It was purely a manifestation of the criminal impulses that are nurtured within those who belong to the State’s punitive caste – and then directed without stint or limit against those who refuse to submit to the “authority” of those privileged bullies.
“These peace officers did their jobs — they did what they were trained to do,”insisted John Barnett, the police union lawyer who represented Manuel Ramos during the trial.
Immediately after the acquittal, Officer Jay Cincincelli – who, like Ramos, was fired following the public outcry after the Kelly Thomas killing – announced that he would seek to get his job back. Given that the Fullerton PD initially defended the officers’ actions, and their training officer insisted that the attack on Thomas followed established procedures, Cincinelli has every reasonable expectation of being rehired.
During his summation to the jury, attorney Michael D. Schwartz, who represented Cincinelli, likewise insisted that the unremitting assault on Thomas was carried out in strict fidelity to the “training” the officers had received.
“The officer has the right to pursue the suspect until the suspect is controlled – that’s how my client was trained,” Schwartz told the jury. From his perspective, this both explained and justified Cincinelli’s use of his Taser as a club, with which – in the assailant’s own words – he “smashed [the victim’s] face to hell.”
Schwartz exhorted the jury to “analyze this case without the emotion.” By this he meant suppressing the human tendency to empathize with the victim; he decidedly did not want the jury to set aside the irrational belief that aggressive violence is morally appropriate when committed in the name of the State.
Once matters of identity are subtracted from the incident, we’re left with the spectacle of a solitary, unarmed, terrified individual being beaten and suffocated beneath more than a half-ton of armed, aggressive strangers. There is no rational basis for describing this as anything other than criminal homicide.
The only way the jury could conclude otherwise would be to accept the premise that police officers, as agents of government-imposed “order,” have an unqualified license to kill any Mundane who resists their aggressive violence. A codicil to that license dictates that police who kill a Mundane who tries to defend himself must be regarded as victims.
“Listen to them during the fight,” Barnett urged the jury, maintaining the pretense that an act of mass violence against a solitary victim somehow constitutes a “fight.” “You don’t think they thought they were in the fight of their lives? Do you think that they called a bunch of cops there … to come watch them and help them beat down some homeless person? Do you think that’s what happened?”
The video recording of the event makes it unambiguously clear that this is precisely what happened. The thrust of the defense argument was that police are given social permission to act this way, and therefore can’t be held legally accountable when they behave according to their training.
“Their actions were consistent with their training, and nobody disputes that,” reiterated Barnett, confident that this was an endorsement of their actions, rather than an indictment of the institution that employed them.
Many commentators have compared the acquittal of Ramos and Cincinelli to the outcome of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. One significant difference here is that the killing of Kelly Thomas was captured on video, and the perpetrators can’t pretend that the identity of the “real killers” is a mystery. A decidedly imperfect but somewhat better comparison could be made to the 1924 Leopold-Loeb murder case.
Richard Loeb was the son of a retired Sears Roebuck vice president; at the time of the murder, he was preparing to enter Harvard Law School. Nathan Leopold was the son of a millionaire box manufacturer.
Leopold and Loeb, who fancied themselves to be philosophers, disdained the moral law as something that applied to lesser beings than themselves. Leopold wanted to commit the “perfect crime” by kidnapping and murdering a wealthy child.
Their selected victim was 14-year-old Bobby Franks, whom they lured into a trap and then killed with a chisel. After burning the victim’s lifeless body with hydrochloric acid and disposing of it in a drainage ditch, the killers sent a ransom note to the young man’s parents. The boy’s mortal remains were found through the intervention of what an investigator called “the hand of God.”
The killers were identified and eventually confessed. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Clarence Darrow successfully mounted a defense that was close kindred to the one offered on behalf of Ramos and Cincinelli: The killers shouldn’t be held accountable for doing what they had been taught to do.
Darrow described how the killers – the children of privilege — had been relentlessly marinated in a nihilistic ideology that led them to believe that there were simply entitled to kill on a whim. This blunted their moral sense and left them unable to repress their appetite for violence. Besides, who were the jurors to judge these hapless artifacts of indifferent Nature?
“Nature is strong and she is pitiless,” Darrow declared during his summation to the jury. “She works in mysterious ways, and we are her victims. We have not much to do with it ourselves. Nature takes this job in hand, and we only play our parts. What had this boy [meaning Richard Leopold] to do with it? He was not his own father, he was not his own mother…. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth, He did not make himself. And yet he was compelled to pay…. Tell me that you can visit the wrath of fate and chance and life and eternity upon a nineteen-year-old boy!”
The defense in the Kelly Thomas trial affected a similar pose of cosmic mystification in pretending that the victim’s death was caused by something other than a prolonged assault by the defendants and a half-dozen of their comrades. Thomas’s death was the product of “fate and chance,” not a prolonged beating by police that left him brain-damaged in an irreversible coma.
John Barnett insisted that Ramos and Cincinelli didn’t act out of “malice” when they killed Thomas. Darrow struck a similar note in his argument on behalf of Leopold and Loeb, and maintained that the murderers could find extenuation in the surpassing pointlessness of their crime:
“Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite, not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go into the make-up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood.”
Leopold and Loeb murdered Bobby Franks for the same reason Manuel Ramos and Jay Cincinelli targeted Kelly Thomas: The helpless victim offered the killers an opportunity to indulge the libido dominandi – the lust to dominate others.
Premeditation may not have been involved in the Kelly Thomas killing, but the perpetrators have been indoctrinated in the belief that they can employ aggressive violence at their discretion, and escalate it as they see fit.
Like Leopold and Loeb, Ramos and Cincincelli earnestly believed that they were entitled to kill. Unlike their murderous forebears, Kelly Thomas’s killers will not be sent to prison – a development that will fortify and encourage their fellow State-licensed sociopaths in police departments throughout the Soyuz.
At roughly the same time a jury in Orange County, California was ratifying the murder of Kelly Thomas as an exercise of an institutional entitlement to kill, a former SWAT commander a continent away shot and killed another man in a movie theater.
Curtis Reeves, who was regarded as the “Best of the best” during his decades as a police officer, took inconsolable offense when Chad Oulson used his cellphone to send text messages to his daughter. After complaining to the theater management, Reeves returned to his seat and confronted Oulson, who (according to the killer) threw popcorn at him. Infuriated by Oulson’s refusal to obey his orders, and acting in “fear for his life,” Reeves did as his decades of training dictated: He drew a firearm and shot the man dead.
Reeves was arrested and – like Manuel Ramos – faces a charge of second-degree murder. There is no measurable moral difference between the lethal actions of those individuals. However, for those who adhere to the cult of the State, Reeves committed a grave sacrilege by carrying out the familiar liturgy of lethal aggression without being clad in the vestments of the government’s punitive priesthood.
I like Slavo am against the idea of them. If I own the firearm and I own my person then whose permission do I need to conceal carry (or open carry) in a public place. A crime cannot occur until someone is harmed or threatened, but that does not stop the government from “outlawing” things at worst or requiring you bow at their altar to receive a permission slip at best.
I am sure there will be detractors that says this is “necessary” and that the Md pigfuk doing this is only an isolated incident or that he was just doing his job or better safe than sorry. But the problem with people who use that rationale is that they have shit for brains.
It’s a crock of shit; this is my CCW:
Why I Cannot Support Concealed Carry Weapons Permits (And Why You Shouldn’t Either!)
John Filippidis is a Concealed and Carry Weapons permit holder, which means he can carry his firearm on his person or in his car legally. He followed all applicable laws in the State of Florida to obtain his permit, and has been a lawful citizen since being “given the right” to retain a firearm when in public.
Recently he was driving through the State of Maryland on a family vacation when he was stopped, for no apparent reason, by a law enforcement officer who had trailed his car for at least ten minutes.
According to his family, this is how the stop went down:
The officer was from the Transportation Authority Police. He asked Filippidis for his license and registration. Around ten minutes later, he returned and asked John to exit his vehicle.
“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”
Filippidis told the officer his gun was at home in his safe.
Apparently the officer didn’t believe Filippidis, because he began questioning his wife, Kally, next:
“Your husband owns a gun. Where is it?”
First Kally said, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later to the Tampa Tribune, she said, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”
That’s when things escalated. The officer confronted Filippidis:
“You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”
Of course a gun could not be produced, since it was home in Filippidis’ safe.
Because Mrs. Filippidis told a different story than her husband, the officer said he had probable cause to search the vehicle. And he did just that. He called for backup and they literally took the vehicle apart in an effort to find the weapon the Mr. Filippidis left in his safe back at home in Florida.
The gun, of course, was never found. After 90 minutes of having their personal property violated, the Filippidis family was released without charge or citation.
Since Mr. Filippidis was driving according to all traffic laws, there was absolutely no reason to pull him over. And this is where our problem starts. Why did he get pulled over in the first place?
It turns out that when you register your weapon as a CCW holder you get flagged and tagged in the system. And, apparently this crosses over state lines, because the Transportation Authority Officer who pulled Mr. Filippidis over did so because he suspected there was a firearm in the car. That’s it – there was no probable cause of wrong doing and no other possible reason this car should have been pulled over.
Remember that whole ridiculous argument about registration of guns eventually leading to confiscation like it has in so many other countries in the past?
Turns out there may we be something to that. Mr. Filippidis and his family were, by all accounts, considered and treated criminals for legally owning a firearm, even though that firearm was not in their possession.
The chief of TAP has apologized to the Filippidis family, but no action has been taken against the officer that, in no uncertain terms, illegally detained and violated the rights of this family and did so at gunpoint.
As noted by Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker, this illegal stop highlights the key problem with CCW permits and gun registration initiatives in general, and he argues why such registration requirements need to be repealed.
Denninger: Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits
There is only one solution to this problem folks — it’s none of the government’s damned business if you’re carrying a weapon or not. It’s none of the government’s damned business right up until you do something unlawful with it, at which point it becomes both reasonable and appropriate to search, arrest, charge, whatever — for the unlawful act.
But the bottom line here is that the fact that this individual registered his ownership and intent to carry for personal protection of himself and his family in the places where it is lawful to do so with the government meant that he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched by a ****head who has faced no penalty for the violation of his Constitutional right to be left alone absent evidence of, or probable cause to suspect, actual unlawful activity.
The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first.
It is only if and when you commit a crime with a weapon present and in some way related to the offense that the government gains the ability to intervene in yourpersonal decision to not be a victim and protect both yourself and others near you, most-particularly your family.
There is no means to solve this problem any other way, as despite whatever sanctions Florida may apply to its peace officers for abusive acts of this sort the very act of registration exposes you to abuses by other political subdivisions in the United States.
Therefore, the only means of stopping this crap is in fact to get rid of any such requirement of registration — period.
We’ll repeat that again in case you missed it: The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry.
Can we all agree that a criminal who intends to do harm to others will never register their firearm? They will be carrying concealed regardless of the laws of the state in which they reside.
So, if the intent of these CCW laws is to prevent gun crimes instigated by gangs and others, then it is a total failure.
What these laws do in actuality is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to own self defense weapons and, as the case in Maryland shows, to track those citizens across the country. Of course, the government would never overstep its bounds like these peace officer in Maryland did. That was just an isolated incident, right?
They’ll have us believe that officials having knowledge of every gun owner in their state, city or neighborhood poses no danger to the freedom of American citizens.
Perhaps today it doesn’t (unless of course you’re John Filippidis on a family vacation). But consider what will happen should more restrictive legislation be passed – or if the President of the United States signs an Executive Order outlawing the ownership of certain types of firearms or their accessories.
It should be crystal clear: Gun registration in any form, even CCW Concealed Carry Weapons permits, pose an immediate and distinct danger to the liberty of the American people.