About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No.


Post 1

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Law enforcement is an honorable profession. A few bad laws and a few bad cops do not erase the good that the enforcement of good laws by good cops does. On balance they certainly do deserve our respect. They do not make the laws.

Bad laws force good people out of law enforcement.

Post 2

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 5:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's often been said that you don't use the best steel to make nails. It's not much different for law enforcement. Most cops are not the sharpest crayons in the box.

Try driving a red car, as I did for ten years. Once you do that, you will start to hate police officers very quickly.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Every group has a cross section of people representative of all types, various personalities, various perspectives and people of varying intelligence. If following the recent schisms in the various objectivist groups doesn't convince you of that nothing will.

I always drive as fast as the traffic will allow. Eighty is an average on a open highway. I've gotten two tickets in nearly forty years. For nineteen years I drove an orange Datsun 510 with a modified suspension, Z pistons to increase the compression, Redline carburetor, disconnected smog pump. It was a lot of fun. One ticket resulting in traffic school. I've driven a red Toyota truck for sixteen years as fast as I could make it go. One speeding ticket in a speed trap in Alameda, not reported to DMV, no traffic school required. I presently have a Corolla XRS. It sounds so cool at 5000-6000 RPM. So far, no tickets.

There have been a couple of times I've been stopped, no ticket. I am invariably polite and respectful. I say "Sir", I do not argue, I do not lie. If the officer says "Do you know how fast you were going", I tell him exactly what I saw looking at my speedometer after spotting him. Every cop I've talked to has been very polite to me in return. Your attitude and cooperation almost completely determines the officers attitude towards you.

"..you will start to hate police officers very quickly."

As usual Chris, a little introspection is in order. The common denominator of all of your interactions with police officers has been yourself.

Post 4

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cops, police officers, whatever you want to call them are no more the peace officers of old that were created by the people to maintain peace. 

Cops and police officers are now law enforcers of de facto laws, which are also bills of pains and punishments and ex post facto laws that infringe upon the rights of the people by taxing, fining, and creating revenues through jails and prisons that are now one of the most profitable businesses.

Their first duty is by Law, not regulations or de facto laws, to the Oath of Office they must subscribe to or affirm, that it is their duty to protect and preserve the rights of the people. 

Traffic laws do not apply to the people unless engaged in transportation of goods or passengers (people who pay to be moved from one place to another).  Every drug, firearm, the right to petition, the right to assemble, and so on are in violation of the limitations placed on government by the Constitution for the united States of America. 

The people are supreme in America, not a bunch of uniformed, badge and gun toting agents for government and not the government.  That is the meaning of the unananimous Declaration of Independence, that the people are sovereign over government.

The kids in this article were right on - the people never gave any authority to peace officers, the state, the federal government, or any political subdivision or chartered corporations called the CITY OF or the COUNTY OF to enforce de facto laws upon the people.  I suggest every cop, sheriff, deputy and American order "The Sheriff" (just search for it) as to the proper role of cops.

Anyway, there are very few, if any, cops that do not commit treason with every citation given to people not engaged commercially, as the whole system of law enforcement is based on fraud, and that do not rely on terrorism (intimidation and use of arms, physical threats, and other perceived threats) to enforce regulations meant only to control government, its creations, and civil servants.

Study the statements of the founders, the Declaration, the Constitution, your state's constitution, and its statutes and you will find that no statute applies to free people, as to be free and live in liberty means not under government control.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a strange question that Prof. Machan is asking. You may well ask "can one respect teachers/scientists/businessmen etc.?" Or even "can one respect men?" They are essentially the same type of questions as the title of the article.

The title must be misguided or misled, since I don't really know what Prof. Machan is getting at: the Orange County politicians who make dumb laws? or the young policemen who simply follow orders? Using teenager kids' opinion to support arguments strikes me as rather pathetic. As we see often enough, many teens don't respect anybody: they don't respect their parents, their teachers, and rebel just about every authority figures in their lives.

Frankly, if I were a policeman, I wouldn't give a damn whether I have you respect or not. If you break law, I'd arrest you or punish your according to the law. If you don't, I'd leave you alone. It is the law that I respect, as imperfect as it is. Otherwise I wouldn't want to be a law enforcer. And nobody lives in a perfect world.  

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 11/09, 3:56pm)


Post 6

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as introspection goes, I will start by saying that I got my driver's license in the summer of 1987 and went almost 15 years without getting a speeding ticket.

I bought my red car in September of 1996. It was a great car, but then I noticed what was definitely a pattern of harassment. The first time was when I was in Washington. I was asked why my car did not have a front plate. I had a plate from a state that didn't require the plates.

In late 1998, I was pulled over for going over the white line (on the side of the road) on a busy two-lane road with a very wide shoulder. I hugged the white line since I figured it was better to go over the side line than to go over the line in the middle.

In early 1999, I got pulled over for changing lanes without signaling. I talked the a--hole out of it when I mentioned that my uncle died and that I was going to his funeral the next day. That was true. I also knew I was in a place with a bad reputation for harassing drivers. My brother had been pulled over for going "too slow" here.

In June of 2002, I finally got my first speeding ticket and got another one on 31 August 2003. Things had definitely changed. In both cases, it seemed quite obvious that the pig had made up his mind. It was also apparent that this was becoming a new form of revenue for Ohio. Ohio is one of the worst states for speeding tickets.

In June 2004, I was driving on I-90 east of Cleveland, going about the same as everyone else. A pig pulled out and followed for six or seven miles. I eventually caught up with an 18-wheeler. I passed the truck, meticulously staying under the speed limit all the time. Once I was about two car lengths ahead of the truck, I pulled over in front of him and stayed close to the truck so the pig couldn't get in between me and the truck safely. The pig eventually passed me, as the state line was only a few miles away. No harm was done, but I was not happy.

I have no respect for cops. I recently got rid of my red car, vowing never again to own one.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe it wasn't the red car. It might have been your 'Fuck da police' bumper sticker.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 1:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've had many contacts with police at all levels during my research on criminal justice issues. Most were among the finest individuals I've ever met, or anyone could ever want to meet.

Some weren't.

So, just who are "the Police"?

The title of essay atop this thread -- and the sweeping generalizations made by some posters throughout -- are grotesque examples of collectivist group-think.

Post 9

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In response to Mr. Bidinotto I wouldn't want to slap any sort of grotesque group-think label on Prof. Machan.
The question of trusting the police is a legitimate one. Everywhere in the US police are required to commit injustices everyday. This includes arresting drug users, ticketing underage drinkers, enforcing smoking laws, open container laws, making bars close at 3, preventing gambling etc. None of these regulations are just and neither is enforcing them. Therefore, it is no more collectivist to say firemen put out fires as it is to say that cops enforces laws - some of which are immoral.
But, there are plenty of good cops. They are good because they make descriminating choices to merely tell marijuana users to simply stay out of the public eye and ignoring other ridiculous laws.


Post 10

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is the reason I am so against laws such as drug laws, vice, all that kind of thing, because it subverts and corrupts the entire system of laws and justice. 

Also, according to what I have read, RED cars do not get any more tickets than any other color, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.


Post 11

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So when one criticizes members of a profession that blindly follows the edicts handed to them by politicians who have no compunction about ordering them to forcibly regiment the citizenry in their personal, non-violent conduct, one is engaged in collectivist group think! Well, this certainly cannot come from anyone who consistently respects the principles of a bona fide free society. It's much more like, at an admittedly more extreme level, claiming that condemning members of the Gestapo or the KGB is a case of collectivist group think.
        These days the police in America are willingly enforcing innumerable unjust laws. (None of that is true of scientists or artist or any other peaceful group since none of them commands and initiates physical power over other people in the fashion the majority of cops do in our time.) Yes, police officers do also enforce some just laws but these days that is less and less the case. Sadly, they are much more akin to IRS agents than to genuine peace officers. As a group, collectively, they carry out innumerable confiscatory, coercive government policies.  And, of course, their vice squad divisions are a disgrace. To defend such people en masse is itself disgraceful. 

(Edited by Machan on 11/09, 9:09pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Machen,

I am well aware of the glut of stupid laws. A great many of these stupid laws are "enforced" by the many government agencies that have be created for this purpose. For instance, having owned a home for more than two decades and having spent a great deal of that time working on it to improve it I have very little regard for the local building inspectors. They are indeed "revenue collectors" and add little or nothing to the value or quality of the work being done in their jurisdictions. It's a protection racket if you ask me. With regard to ordinary police, could I trouble you to think of the relatively peaceful lives most people live, coming and going as they please engaged in all sorts of trade and interactions with each other on a daily basis and tell me if you can imagine that being so without the existence of the police departments in each town and city. In my opinion you are grossly overestimating the amount of time they spend on your "unjust" laws and equally underestimating the benefit they provide to us by enforcing the laws that we all fervently hope continue to be enforced. Ordinary policeman you seem to have forgotten are the means by which the "minimal government" espoused by objectivist principle protects the rights and properties of all individuals in an objectivist society. As a matter of principle the existence of a police force is one of the few professions guaranteed to exist in an objectivist society. Your statement that it is disgraceful to, on principle, respect the profession of law enforcement is itself disgraceful. The default position of any principled person would be to respect the individuals that choose to be law enforcement professionals. To tar all law enforcement officers with the characterization that they are "enforcers of unjust laws" is a form of bigotry. You may have unfortunate experiences from where you came from but that does not justify the generalization that you have made. If you value producers you must also value the profession that protects the property and lives of producers.

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, November 9, 2006 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor, I have to agree with Mike about your outrageous generalizations.

Observe your statement:

"As a group, collectively, they carry out innumerable confiscatory, coercive government policies.... To defend such people en masse is itself disgraceful."

Oh? Let me see if I get this: "To defend such people en masse is...disgraceful"; however, to CONDEMN such people en masse is NOT disgraceful?

And this:

"As a group, collectively, they carry out innumerable confiscatory, coercive government policies." But "as a group, collectively," don't they also protect you, and all of us, against thieves, murderers, rapists, swindlers, and other violators of our rights?

I wonder, Tibor: If you or a loved one were mugged, or came home to find your home burglarized, wouldn't your very first phone call for assistance be to that "group" of people who "carry out innumerable confiscatory, coercive government policies"?

Every day, cops stick their necks out to protect private citizens and their property from predators, sometimes losing their own lives in the process. The fact that they are forced, by the package-deal requirements of their jobs, to also enforce bad laws, is not their fault, and does not negate the vital importance of what they do in creating a safe environment for all of us.

To repeat: such group-think generalizations are collectivist nonsense, unworthy of a true individualist. They drop the context of the legal circumstances under which police officers are required to work; and they constitute a blanket smear of an entire profession, making no effort to judge individuals as individuals.

Tibor, I'm frankly shocked to find this coming from you, a person whom I've long admired as a committed individualist. I would hope that you would reconsider what you have said here, and perhaps amend your post and your preceding statement to conform to the principles I know are so important to you.

Post 14

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 2:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry.  Tibor is having problems posting for some reason.  He asked me to post this on his behalf.

-------------------

I will always appreciate good works from the police--as well as from
teachers, scientists, doctors. But when members of a profession sign on to
performing corrupt tasks without even the slightest visible protest from
virtually anyone among them, that does justify condemning them.


Post 15

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is an interesting topic. The subject of law enforcement is one of the few areas in my life where I have found myself becoming disintegrated (i.e., experiencing a widening gulf between my intellectual and emotional responses) rather than becoming more integrated. I will explain this further in a moment.

First, let me say that intellectually, I am in general agreement with Mike and Robert that it is as unfair to make sweeping generalizations about the entire profession of law enforcement as it is to do so for any other group. Just as with most professions, there are certainly some good officers, some bad ones, with the great majority being mediocre in their commitment, ethics and general abilities. We do end up forming broad conclusions about the overall effectiveness and appropriateness of law enforcement based upon our general awareness of its global activities, but probably more importantly, based upon our personal encounters and experiences with the law.

I was raised to have respect for police officers and during my youth I developed reverential attitude for the concept of justice and correspondingly, for the law. By college I was fully integrated; I held law and law enforcement in high regard intellectually and thinking about them felt good too!

Intellectually, I know that right now our armed forces are fighting to defend this country from attack, and I know that there are organizations like the FBI, NSA and CIA working to thwart clandestine operations and capture dangerous criminals. There are policemen out there working to solve crimes, intervening in domestic disputes and rescuing people in distress. I am also aware that the courts are currently adjudicating cases that allow people to settle matters without having to resort to physical violence. However, I have had some practical encounters with the law that have not lived up to my ideals - not even close.

For example, I have had two situations where I resorted to the court system in an attempt to resolve disputes. Much time, energy and cost were expended and neither I nor the other party ever received anything close to a satisfactory resolution. I have spoken with a number of lawyers over the years and in response to my first question to them, each one has informed me that they have nothing to do with justice and if that's what I am looking for, I won't find it here. It is their view that the court system is about "winning" and nothing more. It's a cliche, but the only winners I have seen are the lawyers themselves. The net result of these encounters has been so bad that I would do just about anything to avoid dealing with the legal system in the future. I once had a friendly conversation with a police officer who recounted with pride the fact that he once suspected a person of being a drug dealer but could not prove it. So, in an attempt to drive the individual out of the area, he would tail him in his car and repeatedly give him speeding tickets for going one mile over the speed limit. Now that's due process.

Mike Erickson wrote:

> For instance, having owned a home for more than two decades and having
> spent a great deal of that time working on it to improve it I have very
> little regard for the local building inspectors. They are indeed "revenue
> collectors" and add little or nothing to the value or quality of the work
> being done in their jurisdictions. It's a protection racket if you ask
> me.

I'm an architect, have to deal with these guys too, and I agree with your assessment. But how about this. Where I live we have little violent crime, although there are occasional robberies. The police force does not patrol my neighborhood, but instead spends most of its time setting up rotating speed traps. In addition, they keep lowering the speed limit all over the place. I'm talking about reductions from 30 or 35 MPH to a 20 or 25. One of these traps is right in front of my house so I see the results. It turns out that that we citizens are just a bunch of punk criminals who drive with reckless abandon since you can hear the siren go off over and over again as they generate a steady stream of tickets as people race down the hill at well over the posted 20 MPH. The net result is that our police are principally "revenue collectors" as well. They are no more committed to road safety than the inspectors are interested in building safety.

Now I take these direct experiences and couple them with observations of the not infrequent reports in the press of police brutality and corruption, the steady stream of abuses of individual rights in the courts, etc., and it all results in a serious emotional toll. Somewhere within me remains that intellectual appreciation for the theoretical concept of justice and the rule of law, but my emotional responses to local law enforcement and the legal profession has become quite negative. I no longer experience any sense of "trust" that I would get a fair hearing or treatment from the police or the courts. Intellectually, I know that I have no serious reason to be paranoid, but I'm sorry to say that I now have a visceral negative reaction whenever I see a policeman. It's been a long journey getting here, but here I am. This state of disintegration is unfamiliar territory for me and quite disconcerting. To achieve this result in someone such as myself, points to a very serious problem.

The law enforcement profession is fundamentally different from other professions and I believe it should be held to a stricter code of conduct. Unfortunately, from my experience and observation, that does not appear to be the case. If I interpret Tibor correctly, I think his concerns may fall in this area, where he observes police being mandated and willing to operate in areas far outside their justified boundaries with no effective protest from within or without their ranks and with ever dwindling checks on where there boundaries lie. I too, think this is something of great concern.

Having though about this issue for some time, let me briefly outline an idea that I think might offer a partial solution.

The police and the courts are fundamentally different from the other branches of law enforcement (army, navy, CIA, FBI, supreme court, etc.) in that they are the organizations with which we citizens must directly interact. We rely on the police for direct protection and the courts for direct adjudication of conflicts. These two areas are extremely important in our lives, and yet we, as individuals, have little control over either. I believe that this lack of direct control is responsible for a large amount of dissatisfaction and resentment on the part of the citizens, while the monopoly status of the police and courts leads to great abuses.

What I suggest is that all police and court activities be privatized as follows.

Competing police agencies would be established and each individual would contract with the organization of their choosing for the level of service they desired. If you were dissatisfied with the service, you could switch agencies. The competition would insure a wide array of choices in the services at the lowest price, and the fact that you were now the direct customer of the agency would focus their concern and responsibility directly where it should be - upon you. In the same way, all local courts would be privatized, basically becoming arbitration agencies. All legal and civil disputes and crimes would be resolved by paying for contract and conflict resolution on a case-by-case basis or possibly by purchasing a contract (like an insurance policy) that guaranteed service when a case arose. All fines would remain at this level, being distributed to victim rather than accruing to the government. Again, competition would yield an array of options and the desire for more clientele would lead the agencies to strive for prompt and just resolution of cases. A second tier of governmental oversight agencies would then be established. These agencies would monitor and regulate both the private police and arbitration companies to insure that they were operating objectively within the laws established by the legislature and higher courts. In this way, many of the competitive benefits of the traditional anarchist approach are realized while still maintaining a governmental structure that sets and enforces an objective set of laws.

The real benefit of all this is that individuals would no longer interact directly with the government and the government would have no direct contact with the citizens. Individuals would be empowered with direct and immediate control over the protection of their rights and the government would no longer benefit financially from involvement in police or court activities. Therefore, there would be little incentive to legislate useless laws or set excessive fines. Since there would be no governmental position in the courts, there would be no incentive for abusive grandstanding for political gain as happens today with public prosecutors.

Of course this is a very brief outline and there are many details that would need to be worked out, but I think this type of system offers some promise. Also, this doesn't directly address Tibor's genuine concern about the police enforcing inappropriate laws, but that's a constitutional and legislative matter and needs to be dealt with separately.

So what do you think?
--
Jeff

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
" ...constitutional and legislative matter and needs to be dealt with separately."

This is the real solution which cannot be addressed until the underlying culture changes to where the majority thinks in terms of principles rather than emotions. Perhaps websites like RoR will eventually make a difference.

Post 17

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff - that actually sounds pretty good.  Of course, what are the chances?

Post 18

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 3:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have a large collection of cop stories--all of which feature patrolmen, police women, sherriff deputies, game wardens, a justice of the peace, town constables, border partrol men and women, and me--a collection that would make any normal, well-adjusted citizen blush with embarrassment. The only rationalization I can offer is that they make me mad, despite my strenuous efforts to "be nice". When they pull me over for a broken tail light, or stop me at the Canadian border demanding to know the purpose of my visit and whether or not I have hidden guns, explosives, or other illegal contraband on my person or in my vehicle, I tend to react with sarcasm. But the truth is, I don't have to say anything to get off on the wrong foot with these people. For my facial expression seems to telegraph my disapproval. More than once I've seen the expression on a patrolman's face change from pleasant or neutral to hostile. All I did was look at the guy as he approached me. However, an IRS agent who audited me (I suspect for a letter-to-the-editor I had written) wound up liking me--invited me to play golf!  Maybe he was moved a little by my attempt to persuade him to quit the IRS and become a private accountant.

To Professor Machan, I finished reading the book on Islamic history by Karsh, which was impressive. Karsh details the history of the Islamic movement from its inception, and proves that the movement is historically imperial in its outlook, seeking to forcefully impose Islam on people everywhere, and striving to unite all the people of the Middle East under the yoke of an Islamic Nation. Repeated attempts to forge an Islamic Empire founder on the shoals of  cultural, religious, and political antagonisms. Every Middle Eastern despot wants to head the next Islamic Nation, but every despot opposes power to his rivals. 

Karsh also points out that the Islamic movement has been historically opportunistic, as false ideologies nearly always seem to be. Throughout their history, Muslim politicians have publically pledged impassioned militant jihad against the infidels of the West--but also of the East. However, again and again, these militant politicans have aligned themselves with Western governments to pursue political and commercial opportunities, even as they feed Muslim masses the propaganda they want to hear. In this sense, Islamic dictators remind me of Democrats and Republicans.

The book persuaded me that certain core elements of the Islamic movement have as their ultimate objective the destruction of the United States and Europe. The Soviets and even Castro had long cherished a similar objective: Bury the USA. And nuclear and biological weapons can make a primitive state or savage movement dangerous. But there is a big disconnect between the ravings of psychopathic murderous politicans and the material limits to their ability to conquer the world, or the United States.

The best defense for the United States, under these circumstances, is to get the hell out of the Middle East, and right now. As Karsh makes abundantly clear in the last chapter, in which he discusses bin Laden, Al Queda's primary objective is to force the removal of the American military from the Middle East. As long as our military stays in the region, we assist bin Laden and other Islamic mass murders in their struggle to unite disparate cultures, sects and tribes around a central goal: killing the invading, murderous American oppressors. Our military presence helps them recruit new terrorists to their jihad. Our attempts at nation-building help them whoop up hatred and blood lust for Americans and "agents of the devil" aligned with the USA.  

Once out, we should apologize to the world--including to the populations of the Middle East--for the wrongful deaths and destruction our military adventuring has inflicted. We should announce that our foreign policy has changed for good: no more adventuring, no more imperial attempts to "run things" in other states. This apology should not attempt to rationalize the heartless mass murdering by Islamic terrorists; it should simply acknowlege in public that our foreign policy has been morally wrong. 

We should permit American businessmen to seek profitable trading opportunities with business people in the region, at their own risk. To whatever extent trade between Americans and Middle Easterners can flourish, good feeling will result from mutually beneficial exchange.  Karsh relates how Islamic principalities throughout the Middle Ages aligned themselves with Western trading partners, and against other Islamic strongholds.

If our intelligence can prove that Iran is building nuclear weaponry that could pose a realistic threat to the territorial United States, as opposed to threatening American imperial ambitions, and if we can accurately identify the location of these weapons, perhaps we should destroy those sites from the air. But we should make every effort to warn away helpless people from those sites before we bomb them, to minimize the loss of life. If we can't locate a facility with a high degree of accuracy, we would be better off to avoid misdirected destruction. The more death and destruction we cause, the greater the likelihood of nuclear retaliation, sooner or later.

One final thought from reading Karsh's book: the Bush invasion of Iraq was stupid and morally illegitimate on its face. The Islamic jihad had targeted Ba'thist secular Iraq as an enemy. Our military spared them the effort of getting rid of Saddam, clearing the way for the construction of their beloved Islamic Imperial Hegemony throughout the Middle East.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Friday, November 10, 2006 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Too Many Cops are Opportunistic Bullies, But not All

The time I was stopped in traffic was for making a right turn on red, which is allowed in New Jersey, except where posted. The sign at that location was visible two car lengths back from the intersection, but not at the intersection. There was no other traffic on the road, as it was late at night. The cop who stopped me happened to be a kid with whom I had been friends in elementary school, but who was short and became the hanger-on of one of the bullies in our high school. We did not have any contact during those years, but I had had a run in with that bully whom I punched on the first day we met. (He had shoved me, and I refused to back down.) My elementary school friend let me go because he remembered our friendship. I thought of the line from the Rolling Stones' song.

Back in 1990, at age 22, when I drove into Manhattan for the first time to drive home my boyfriend (I am white, and wear a ponytail, he was black and well dressed) I made an improper turn in the traffic circle one flows into when exiting the Holland Tunnel. I was stopped and the police made us get out of the car, and questioned us separately, obviously assuming we were conducting a drug deal. In my pocket I had one prescription allergy pill, given that I have very bad allergies. I told him that I had the empty bottle in the car, but was not sure where it was. It became obvious that they were going to take us in, so I told the cop holding me that we were on our first date, and that this was the first time I had driven into Manhattan, and couldn't he cut us some slack. I figured that such an out of the blue statement would jar him and make him reconsider our criminality. He yelled to his partner to let my friend go, and told me he was going to write me up a warning, but that I better find that prescription bottle before he was through or he would arrest me. I told my friend (and lover-to-be of six years what I had said to let us be released. He said "Christ, they'll beat the shit out of us." I said, let's just find the bottle. It had fallen between the seats. The cop gave me the ticket. I said thanks, and he said "Make sure you faggots just keep the fuck out of New York." Needless to say, I did not take his advice.

I was still living in New Jersey and driving into the City to visit my boyfriend Jay, when I fell at work, breaking my arm. On the day I was to have the cast removed, I got stopped by a state trooper for going 72mph, which was no faster than the surrounding traffic. When he approached my window, his first words were, "So where are you headed in such a hurry?!" I calmly told him the simple truth, that I was on my way to have the cast removed. He responded "Well it's not on your fucking foot, is it?" I got a ticket.

Two years later, my boyfriend and I had two $100 tickets to a concert downtown. He was babysitting his nieces in Harlem, so I went to meet him at his Grandmother's. On the way from the apartment to the subway, we walked past a cop car that was parked on the curb. As soon as we passed, the sirens were flashing and they were out and had us up against the wall. My first time in "the position." They started asking us where the drugs were, being very sarcastic and pushing us around. I made the mistake of asking what probable cause they had to stop us. With a straight face, one of the cops said that when I "reached inside my jacket to pull out my baseball cap" (which I kept folded in the inside breast pocket) I "could have been pulling out a gun." In other words, they knew it wasn't a gun, but they already had their lie prepared. Jay had a NY license and no warrants, so they let him go. I had a Jersey license so they said that it was obvious I must have a warrant out for me since I knew what probable cause was, and they said they were going to hold me at the station and check me out. One was officer Greenberg, and the other officer Hernandez. (I still have the ticket I got for "disorderly conduct.") With me in the back handcuffed, they started baiting me, saying "So whatcha doin' in this neighborhood, Whitey?" I responded, "So what got a Spick and a Heeb like you assholes assigned here?" They held me in the locker room for six hours with my boyfriend finally tracking me down and making a stink at the front desk. The Sergeant got angry at them for holding me. They wrote up the "disorderly conduct ticket" and let me go. I had to take a day off work unpaid to fight the charge. When I got to the court, the clerk said that I wasn't on the docket. I asked what that meant. She said the cops had never turned the ticket in. I asked if that meant I could go. She said no, I would have to wait to see if they showed up. They didn't. I didn't get to plead not-guilty, the charges were dismissed before I got to the bench. My boyfriend and I missed a day of work each. I was told that if I wanted to pay a $500 retainer and wait two years I would get a five to twenty thousand dollar settlement for false arrest. I declined. And we missed the concert.

That was the same year a Puerto Rican kid got strangled to death by a cop because his football hit a cop car during a game of touch football. The cop got off, but was fired.

(End Part I)

Ted Keer, 10 November, 2006

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/10, 11:43pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/11, 2:37pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.