Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Remove perks that enable Police

Remove perks that enable Police

My Clovis News Journal column for November 22, 2013.

This one was heavily edited, with a lot of "allegedly" added by the newspaper. And some other things I will point out.

After you read my column at the link above, please come back and read this post, then read the column as I originally wrote it at the bottom.

I disagree most vigorously with the addition of the words "alleged" and "allegedly" in the editing of my column.  I completely understand that the editor needs to protect the interests of the newspaper, so I didn't fight him on that.

The word "allegedly" has a place when it is one person's word against another's- one who denies the accusation.  After all, you and I weren't (usually) there to see what happened- we are taking someone's word for it, and everyone has an agenda.  People want to win their lawsuits, or keep their job, or make the other guy look bad, or whatever.  So, since the facts aren't known for certain, the word "allegedly" makes that point clear.

But, nowhere are the facts of these cases I am writing about in dispute.  Neither the cops, nor their gang's official spokescritters, nor either hospital's staff, dispute that the events happened as described in the lawsuits- the only dispute is that the cops and copsuckers and other "authority" worshipers see the acts as justified and "allowed by law" in pursuit of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.  That is total BS, and anyone with any morals or ethics knows it.  Rape is rape, and wearing a badge while you rape doesn't change that fact.  Nor does raping in pursuit of some goal you hallucinate to be "noble".

The newspaper also has to appease the local puppeticians and cops by bending over backwards when discussing even non-local cops and puppeticians in order to look "fair" to these people- to the point of being unfair to those of us who aren't gang members- and I also understand that.  The newspaper needs to keep access to these people, or they'll be shut out and denied access to news releases and whatnot.  That would damage their ability to function as a newspaper.  However, over time this appeasement creates other problems, by not exposing corruption as thoroughly as it deserves to be exposed.  Trying to appear "fair" to a known bad guy makes one lose credibility in the eyes of those who are observing from the side.

These cops really did do what they are accused of- they don't even deny it.  So let's not tiptoe around the facts- let's call them what they know they are: rapists.

At the end of the "30 day exclusivity" I will post the column as I originally wrote it, below.  Come back then and compare the two versions.

Here it is, as originally written, with parenthetical comments and an important link added:

The recently publicized examples of assault by police officers, while supposedly looking for drugs, are much more than "simple assault"; they are acts of aggressive penetration. If you or I did anything similar we would rightfully be called rapists.

Is bodily penetration becoming a weapon of choice in the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? Texas police began this tactic a few years ago with their road-side syringe assaults to steal blood from drivers- penetrating the body of those they wished to incriminate.

Now New Mexico cops have overshadowed their Texas brethren, getting caught in multiple acts of medically assisted gang rape against drivers who weren't yet sufficiently terrorized, and justified by the 21st Century equivalent of the witch trial: a false "alert" by a drug-sniffing dog- a scam as scientifically invalid as "polygraph tests" and astrology. (The newspaper objected to this characterization, and edited it out, saying that dogs can be trained to sniff out all sorts of substances- yes, they can, but that's not the point. Dogs want to please their handlers and learn how to do so by "alerting" falsely. Also, a dog's alert is only as good as the word of its handler- if he lies to justify a rape, the dog can't come back and testify against him. And, we all know cops lie. If using dogs to find "drugs" were scientific, it wouldn't result in so many false positives. It's a scam.)

No individual involved in these rapes should ever again have any "authority" over anyone. I would never hire them, nor knowingly do business with anyone who did.

I salute the hospital whose staff wisely recognized that compliance with the police demand was wrong, and refused.

The medical staff at the other hospital, who assisted in these rapes in violation of their medical oaths, should all lose their "licenses" and be fired.

Each attacker needs to be paying the victims out of his own pocket for the rest of his life. There is no excuse for letting them get away with this, nor for forcing the "taxpayers" to pay the restitution.

Leo, the "drug dog" who alerted on command for his handler (and whose certification expired years ago, by the way- "according to media reports" the newspaper adds), needs to be retired and rescued from being employed in this vulgar manner.

It's not enough to make these rapists face justice; it's long past time to end that which makes their crimes possible. Abolishing prohibition, which has become the excuse for just about any violation of individual rights you can imagine, is essential. It was never an ethical endeavor, but has become downright vile. It's not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater- that's not bathwater, it's sewage, and those lumps are not a baby.

Next, dismantle the domestic US police state. Return cops to their only legitimate position- one of servitude- and remove all the perks and "officer safety" protection which has emboldened them over the past several decades. Or end the disastrous experiment in policing, altogether.

The people who will say I am going too far are the same ones who call for freelance rapists to be castrated or executed. I am reasonable by comparison. (The newspaper thought this last paragraph was confusing and deleted it.)

Where do you want to be?

There is a continuum from good to bad when you talk about how to attempt to live among other humans- what people call "politics".

To me, when keeping the discussion limited to where I currently find myself living, it goes something like this: anarchy to minarchy to the Articles of Confederation to "local government" to the "states" to the Constitution to whatever it is the individuals in America stagger under now.  Of course, there can always be something worse.

Your particular manner of arranging them from good to bad may differ from mine, but I'll bet you do still have a preferred order.

I'd be happy for any move toward the good and away from the bad, but I won't be satisfied anywhere along the continuum except anarchy.  How much liberty is enough for you?