Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Immediate, extreme, TERMINAL violence against unwarranted attackers?

Immediate, extreme, TERMINAL violence against unwarranted attackers?


I'll take the solution to unwarranted threats of violence and attacks a step further than Detroit Police Chief James Craig did according to that above-linked article.

While reminding the city's violent thugs, burglars, home-invaders, mobsters, knock-out gamers, and flash-mobs that armed citizens might kill them, Craig said this:
          "People who are faced with a dangerous situation are taking matters into their own hands. We’re not advocating violence; we’re advocates of not being victims. We’re advocates of self-protection. We want people to be safe."
We're not advocating violence? 

Oh yes, Chef Craig.  You clearly advocate exactly what people do to defend life, liberty, and property.  You know that competent aggressive law enforcement does not exist on-scene when citizens need a cop the most to protect them from violent criminals like home-invaders, burglars, muggers, thugs, armed robbers, car jackers, flash mobs, and other crooks. In fact, you know that cops have no legal duty to protect people even if they see criminal hurting somebody.

So, you openly acknowledge that people have the right to protect themselves AND their property AND their loved ones with DEADLY, LETHAL FORCE at ALL TIMES from unlawful aggressors.  And you acknowledge that many do use lethal violence to defend themselves, and you see nothing wrong with it.  So your silent ADVOCACY of lethal violence in self defense SCREAMS SO LOUDLY that you don't have to LIE in saying you don't advocate it.  OF COURSE you advocate lethal violence in self defense, and if you don't. you're an IDIOT.

In fact, the people have that right against government employees like Detroit's cops who become unlawful aggressors under COLOR OF LAW.  That is, the aggressors might wear a cop uniform or drive a cop car or claim to be a cop, but they use the force of authority, backed by a menacing pistol strapped to their hip or bulging beneath a jacket, shirt, or blouse, to commit unlawful acts while pretending the law supports that unlawful act.  By what lawful authority, for example, did  gunmen in uniforms, posing as FEMA agents or sheriffs, enter flooded communities in New Orleans and confiscate home owners' firearms?  NONE.  And therefore, nobody could blame those homeowners for shooting the uniformed aggressors dead in their tracks.

I won't, like Chief Craig did, fail to advocate violence or turn my face away from the blatantly OBVIOUS right to threaten and use VIOLENCE AND LETHAL FORCE in defense of myself, my property, my family, my lawful neighbors, and my community.

Let's honestly face reality.  The PEOPLE constantly risk invasion and injury from all kinds of people in and out of government.  And I personally consider the most egregiously evil and dangerous the gunmen employed by government to investigate crimes and enforce the law.  The newspapers have countless articles in them about armed government agents, sheriffs, cops, etc., who, for personal gain or out of whim, aggressively confront innocent people and make unlawful or dangerous demands upon them and confiscate money, weapons, phones, cameras, vehicles, and personal effects, and do invasive cavity (including vaginal and anal) searches.  If more citizens started shooting dead such government thugs operating under color of law, I believe Americans would enjoy safer and more secure lives.

So I advocate violence and use of lethal force in defense of one's life, liberty, property, family, neighbors, and community, against both non-government thugs and government thugs operating "ultra-vires" (outside actual lawful authority) under color of law (pretending to have lawful authority).  And this includes the effort of government thugs to enforce unconstitutional laws.

For this reason, I believe able citizens of every community should volunteer for militia and neighborhood watch duties and to call on one another for group support in the event of a violent confrontation by a thug like (for example) Trayvon Martin who tried to beat to death nieghborhood watch captain George Zimmerman.  Such watch and militia members should wear a screeching device with a flashing light they can activate at any sign of danger, and upon hearing it, the able, armed members of the community should respond by running to the scene to help out.

Thugs, whether in our out of government, should respect ordinary citizens sufficiently to deter the thugs from invading a citizen's rights.  Citizens only create such respect in the minds of thugs by demonsratively deploying violent force fearlessly and ruthlessly against unlawful attackers, invaders, and thugs, regardless of whether those attackers operate in or out of government.  Thug heads on pikes tend to alert other thugs about the dangers in which their thuggery place them.

Thugs KNOW this, of course.  They know the criminal statutes prohibit their thug behavior and they know that while people sometimes tolerate it for a while, eventually they send retribution to torment the thugs and terminate the thug behavior.  They know that they will eventually bring upon themselves such scorn and detestation by repeated thuggery that someone will visit violence on them and end their life or liberty on this whirling rock.  Thus does thuggery in and out of government BEG and PLEAD for the ASSASSINATION of the thug.  Those citizens with a lot of patience might seek criminal prosecution against the thug, but some might just up and kill them in order to stop the thuggery.

And this also applies to thuggish oligarchs.  By this I mean ultra-vires governments, government cliques, good-old-boys networks, and individual government operatives.  I have not become merely the first thinking person to express the above sentiments.  Thugs in and out of government should take their cues from these passages from the Declaration of Independence AND the original Florida Constitution:

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Excerpt from the Florida Constitution of 1838, Article I

That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Section 1.    That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2.    That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.
For the above reasons I think every citizen should "pack heat" when out and about on the byways of the community, when driving around, on the way to and from church, errands, and entertainment, social, or political events, and even when going to court.  I recognize that laws prohibit it, but I don't consider bailiffs and judges and lawyers any more important or deserving of protection than the man on the street.

And I know of many instances where bailiffs have unlawfully manhandled or otherwise intimidated visitors to court proceedings for no good reason whatsoever.  The public should meat such misbehavior with abject intolerance, and insist upon modification of the laws to allow them to defend themselves against brutal and highhanded bailiffs, cops, sheriffs, judges, and other government employees.

The citizenry risks certain death or incarceration by standing up to armed government employees, but not by voting for controls on miscreant behaviors by government employees, such as mandating that all judges and armed government employees or agents wear video cameras that record their activities and confrontations with the public 24 hours a day, with free access to the record by anyone complaining credibly of injury by those employees.

I believe one of the most serious problems with using lethal violence in defense of one's life, liberty, property, family, and neighbors lies in the question of whether the target of that violence deserves it.  The courts tend to believe cops who testify against citizens, and not to believe the citizens.  But any criminal defense lawyer will testify that cops and prosecutors lie in court whenever self-interest seems to justify it and they think they can get away with it.  That's why I want to see laws requiring them to wear cameras to record their behavior and conversations.  I also want to see much harsher penalties to punish cops who abuse citizens than against citizens who abuse one another, and a zero tolerance policy against retention of cops against whom citizens report abuse by public officers and law enforcers.

Meanwhile, I believe every citizen has the right to use lethal force and violence to defend against credible unlawful or color-of-law threats by anyone else in or out of government to encroach on their their life, liberty, and property property rights.  The Chiefs of Police in every community, not just Detroit, should acknowledge this and support the citizenry's effort to protect itself.  After all, everyone nowadays knows that in spite of their motto to protect and serve, cops have no legal duty to protect anyone.


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


No comments: