Is the 'criminal' more honorable than the 'authorities'?
The Albuquerque man arrested last month for shooting a sheriff's deputy is being given a day out of jail to attend his brother's funeral. Without a lot more facts I can't say whether this temporary release is a good thing or a bad thing.
I admit, there is a lot I don't know about the history behind this case, and the "authorities" will never tell the truth openly. This man was "arrested" for shooting the deputy, but the deputy he shot was involved in a SWAT raid on him at the time- for a victimless "crime" he was suspected of committing. This was obviously a self defense shooting. The deputy's gang was attempting to use force in order to effect a kidnapping of a person who was not actually initiating force, theft, or fraud at the time of the shooting. There is nothing magical about a badge that makes a person immune from consequences of coercion, no matter what The State may claim.
The State claims the man is a "suspected drug dealer", but that is not wrong in and of itself. It is an exercise in the free market. Is the man really a "danger to our community" or only to people who are attacking him? Of course those whose "jobs" involve coercion and threats to the rights and liberties of the normal individuals are whining mightily about the release. As always "officer safety" comes first in their "minds", long before any such trivial (to them) thing as the absolute right to be left alone to live your life as you see fit until you initiate force, fraud, or theft.
Should he voluntarily return to captivity after the funeral? That is a call only he can make, since any agreement he made with his kidnappers is null and void on grounds that it isn't truly consensual.
Friday, September 17, 2010
What happens when you don't pay your 'protection money'?
What happens when you don't pay your 'protection money'?
An Albuquerque-area couple has allowed themselves to be abused and stolen from by a gang of thieves as retribution for the uppity act of attempting to keep their own property rather than handing it over to the thieves who demanded it. They "pleaded guilty to tax evasion". I'm sure when staring down the gun barrels of The State it seemed like the only option open to them, but it is a real shame to give in to bad guys, no matter what silly hat they wear.
There is nothing wrong with "tax evasion" unless it is also wrong to hide money in your shoe so the mugger in the alley won't take it. They may have done so, but they are by no means "guilty" since there is no guilt associated with a right and proper course of action when faced with coercion.
The "judge" also made sure to threaten the couple to continue to pay their protection money "or else". How can anyone think the tax racket is anything other than mob-style theft?
An Albuquerque-area couple has allowed themselves to be abused and stolen from by a gang of thieves as retribution for the uppity act of attempting to keep their own property rather than handing it over to the thieves who demanded it. They "pleaded guilty to tax evasion". I'm sure when staring down the gun barrels of The State it seemed like the only option open to them, but it is a real shame to give in to bad guys, no matter what silly hat they wear.
There is nothing wrong with "tax evasion" unless it is also wrong to hide money in your shoe so the mugger in the alley won't take it. They may have done so, but they are by no means "guilty" since there is no guilt associated with a right and proper course of action when faced with coercion.
The "judge" also made sure to threaten the couple to continue to pay their protection money "or else". How can anyone think the tax racket is anything other than mob-style theft?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)