When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?

When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?


Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.

I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.

What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.

It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.

And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.

*
Donate?

Public schools or education? Choose one.

Public schools or education? Choose one.

In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.

I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.

Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."

Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".

*
Donate?

What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?

What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?

The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?

An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.

Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.

Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".

Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.

*
Donate?

The emperor's clothes never change

The emperor's clothes never change


The emperor's new clothes. They are the same as his old clothes. Imaginary. He has always been completely naked, and this set of "new clothes" is no different than the ones he has always claimed to be wearing.

Many people pretend to see the clothes when it's "their guy" walking around, yet bring attention to the nakedness when it's "the other side's guy" wearing nothing. The emperor is really the entire notion of government- not an individual holding an office, and his "clothes" are the imaginary cloak of legitimacy some people seem to desperately want to see covering the naked aggression that gives this murderous emperor his concrete form.

The cloak of legitimacy is not real, and never has been. I'm one kid who sees that the emperor is naked and tells the truth about it. Yet some people want me to hush. It embarrasses them to have it pointed out since they get their self-worth by following the emperor around, praising him and his "fine garments" and "necessary" (evil) deeds. They blame the messenger for the discomfort of what they don't want to see. They may refuse to see, but it doesn't change the reality.

* * *

In Albuquerque news: A five-month long, and undoubtedly very expensive, investigation by that naked blood-sucking emperor has resulted in nine people kidnapped on "drug charges" in western New Mexico. I'd be interested in cost per hostage (or political prisoner, if you prefer), itemized in detail. If the emperor were truly interested in putting an end to "drug trafficking" as he claims, he could end it today by calling off the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Because he doesn't, we know he is a liar as well as a kidnapper and a murderer.

*
Donate?

Government-givers

Government-givers


A symposium being held in Albuquerque will educate judges, LEOs, and tribal leaders about a new treaty... oops, I mean "law", that affects crime on reservations.

The Federal government paternalistically "gave more authority" to Native tribes to deal with
crime on their reservations with the Tribal Law and Order Act, signed by the president last
summer. And the new "law" also guarantees the feds will keep records of all criminal cases
from the reservations that federal prosecutors decline to pursue. Nothing like getting more individuals into that federal database to increase our liberty and prosperity.

How benevolent of those White Eyes from Washington DC who always speak with two tongues. "Giving" something that is not theirs to give to those who don't need it.

Unless it "gives" tribes the authority to nullify "laws" of lesser, non-consensual groups, such as the federal and state governments, then it is much ado about nothing. But then, the tribes have always had that authority. They should exercise it. As should any voluntary group of individuals.

*
Donate?

Decreasing your local entropy

Decreasing your local entropy


I am a anti-entropist. I constantly try to decrease my local entropy while knowing that in the Universe as a whole, it must increase. I see where people have messed something up or broken it, and I want to fix it even if it is not my responsibility. And I often do.

That is part of why I dislike The State. It breaks the natural order and harms individuals. It is chaos of the worst kind masquerading as order.

Statists lie and pretend that they are fighting entropy, but instead they are accelerating it. Instead of letting human interactions naturally crystallize into the best, most stable, and mutually beneficial forms, The State prevents that spontaneous order and uses "laws" to make a mess of everything; to divorce actions from justified consequences. Then supporters of The State claim that the only alternative is chaos and death. They lie. I do not support their false beliefs. I will not even silently pretend the statists are right to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

* * * *

In Albuquerque news: I've mentioned the counterproductive drive to "do something" previously. The urge rears its empty head once again.

Some bikers in Albuquerque were recruited by an anti-heroin group to get the message out to teens that "heroin is here, it's in on our streets and in our schools". Seriously, I suspect the teens were the first to know. Instead of "breaking the silence" and telling teens what they already know, why not tell them the truth.

Tell them that abusing drugs, or anything, is a stupid thing to do. Tell them that they own their body and have a right to do anything to it they want, including destroying themselves, BUT no one has any obligation to rescue them from their stupid choices. And tell them that The State will kill them to "save them" from drugs, if given half a chance. That's the message that needs to get out there.

*
Donate?

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged


Sometimes, The State's actions seem like the set-up for a joke. After a church service in Albuquerque, a man (who happens to be an ex-convict) stabbed a man who was approaching to greet him. Now, when I used to attend church, I will admit the "greeters" got on my nerves pretty bad a few times, but I was never seriously tempted to stab one.

Obviously, the stabber was soon caught and charged with "aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon" (although I still fail to see the point in charging a person with 2 crimes from one act - since I am not afflicted with the insanity of statism). That's not the main stupidity on display here, though. The stabber was also charged with three counts of child abuse because some children saw the stabbing!

Fine. If that's the way they want to play. Then every cop who kicks in a door in a drug raid, especially when it turns out to be the wrong address, needs to be charged with child abuse from this day forward, if any children were present. If they are not so charged, then the statists are exposing themselves (another serious offense) as hypocrites in the extreme.

*
Donate?

In touch with my caveman roots

I am a primitive. I am still too impressed with cordage, blades, and fire. More impressed than seems proper, by modern standards, anyway. There are so many "bigger" things out there now.

Yet, when I see some cordage I always need to examine it. I even feel the urge to collect and keep inferior cordage, like nylon, that I find discarded. I can make my own cordage, but that just makes me appreciate it more. I know how much work goes into it.

And I love knives. A knife is always a good gift in my opinion. And is a nice find. I even find pieces of metal and think about whether they would make a good blade in a survival situation. And I'll chip stones just to see what sort of edge it makes, and how useful it would be.

Then there's Fire. I love to sit beside a small fire I made with primitive methods and watch it flicker and burn. I love the way it sounds and smells. And the things it can be used for.

I would make a good caveman.

The State asks stupid questions

The State asks stupid questions


I see another incident in the Albuquerque news that illustrates a point I have made many times before.

A man was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 4-year old son and his mother. Both survived.

The cops admit it was an accidental shooting, but are sending the case to prosecutors to determine whether negligence played a part in the accident.

I can save a lot of taxpayer money right now: Yes, obviously and positively negligence did play a huge part in the accident. Guns don't shoot innocent people by themselves, and people who are not negligent in some way don't shoot innocent people either. So, save yourself the trouble of trying to appear to be "doing something" as prosecutors.

Now that I've settled that question, the other question remains, what is in it for The State if they decide to make a case out of this accident? Money and power, of course. That's all it ever comes down to. Not every accident (if any) needs to become a criminal case and be punished. I don't think this man intended to shoot his relatives, and making an example of him will not prevent this type of accident in the future. Not even in one case. I'll guarantee you the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be more careful from now on (if The State "allows" him to own guns after this). If anyone has a case against this man it is the people he shot. Not The State.

*

Donate?

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites


Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of being one of the cities in America where more than 20% of its residents work for government at some level. Albuquerque comes in at number 13, with 21.58% of its workforce being tax-parasites. I'll bet if the accounting considered those "private sector" jobs that could not exist without supporting some government function the percentage would be much higher. But we'll ignore that for now.

That means that the rest of the people in Albuquerque, almost four out of five, are carrying those freeloaders. There is a better than one in five chance that you are parasitically living off your neighbors and the fruits of their production. But no one seriously considers taxation to be theft and those who live on government paychecks to be parasites. That's right. "No one" does.

*
Donate?

I am 'no one'

I am 'no one'


I have discovered that according to the statists, I do not exist. That should mean they don't expect me to pay taxes or be bound by their "laws". Right?

What proof do I have that I am a non-existent "no one" to the statists? Consider these statements I have heard many times over the course of the years coming from them:

"No one wants to live without police."

"No one wants to live in a town without code enforcement."

"No one wants mentally ill people to be able to have guns."

"No one wants felons to be able to legally own guns."

"No one wants to completely end taxation."

"No one seriously thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the government."

"No one would want to do without government free [sic] roads and free [sic] schools for the children."

"No one really wants to make all drugs legal."

"No one wants to remove government oversight from businesses that make our food and drugs."

In all the above statements, I AM "no one". I have advocated all of those very things in the virtual pages of The Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner in the past year and a half, and in my blog for years before that.
Are you also "no one" in at least some of the above?

*
Donate?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?


An Albuquerque cop is a "person of interest" in his wife's 2007 shooting death and may be indicted by a grand jury early next year. And other ABQ cops, rather than just protecting this cop with words of support and denial, may have actually destroyed evidence that could have convicted him. "Thin blue line" indeed.

Do you really want these people to have "legal" access to weapons you are denied the liberty (in violation of your rights) to own and to carry? Do you really think cops are more honest and trustworthy than you or me? I'm not saying he committed the murder, but obviously some people know him and suspect he would be capable of it. I don't want that sort of person to be around me if I am forbidden defensive weaponry at least equal to his. And I certainly don't want him to have any "authority".

I keep wondering- what is it about all these cases involving cops taking so many years to get prosecuted? Preferential treatment again? There has got to be a separation of court and State. IF justice is to be the goal.


*
Donate?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?


An Albuquerque LEO accused of raping a young relative on several occasions, both before and after she was 13 years old, and then intimidating her into remaining silent, has been placed on "administrative leave" after being indicted. He can't carry a weapon (they mean "legally", I suppose) and can't investigate crimes as a cop for the duration. I wonder if he still gets to receive his duly-earned stolen money "paycheck" until he is either found guilty or cleared, or if his "leave" dries up that well.

I have no idea if he actually did it or not, but I do tend to suspect he is not getting the same treatment at the hands of The State that someone like you or me would be getting if we were facing the same accusations. It sure seems like he is getting preferential treatment to me.

Even people with supposed images of young people on their computers, who aren't even suspected of actually touching or photographing anyone themselves, get harsher treatment- without delay- at the hands of The State than this cop is getting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only, some ganders are more "equal" than we geese because they have a badge.

*
Donate?

Do-it-yourself statism

Do-it-yourself statism


If you are rich and think "the rich", including yourself, should pay higher taxes, what is stopping you from sending big checks to government right now? Why do you need a "law" ordering you to do it? As long as you don't force people who have a different idea of how to use their own money to go along, you are within your rights to waste your money however you want. (And make no mistake, sending the money to government is a waste unless you like bloated organizations which spend little of the money on the actual work they claim the money is going toward.) Once you start telling others how they must use their money and advocating "laws" to force them to do as you wish, you become an evil parasite; deserving of a parasite's fate.

This "do-it-yourselfism" could even be adapted to other areas of life.

If you think you have a "right" to control what your neighbor does with his own property, why not walk up to his door and try to force him, personally, to do as you wish? Why take the pathetic coward's way and send heavily armed thugs in your place? Sending thugs doesn't absolve you of your evil act in the slightest, no matter what you may pretend. You are just hiding your evil behind your hired goons.

If you hate for people to own and to carry guns, try to take them away yourself. And do it without a gun so as to not be a hypocrite. Pass all the counterfeit "laws" you want, but no one is obligated to obey a "law" that is counter to natural human rights- one of the most basic of which is the right to possess the best available tools for self-defense, and use them when needed against ANY attack.

If you support the War on (some) Drugs, throw away all your medications. Every single one of them. Don't take drugs. Then physically attack any family member or friend who doesn't subscribe to your silliness. Order them to only eat and drink things you approve of under threat of death. Don't send others to kick in doors in the middle of the night. Do it yourself if you approve. There are probably lots of people who could provide you with a list of houses in Albuquerque the cops are probably planning to conduct an illegal early-morning raid against. Put your life on the line for your beliefs, and accept the consequences of your acts.

Yes, by embracing collectivism - and attempting to force it on people who are too sensible for such simplistic nonsense - you show yourself to be a bad person. But at least you would be an "honest" bad person if you openly admit your goals and carry them out yourself instead of hiding behind the myth of the legitimacy of government.

*
A reader suggests, in the vein of a "gaggle of geese" a name for a group of cops: "a thug". I can imagine it now... "Did you hear that thug of cops over at the donut shop all arguing among themselves over how to split up the latest drug bust loot?"

*

Donate?

Another aircraft in the news

Another aircraft in the news


Speaking of aircraft troubles, the Albuquerque Police Department's aerial tyranny unit has been used to drop a football into a high school homecoming game in Rio Rancho. Now an APD employee is in trouble.

What's the problem?

A government agency which claims "authority" and is based upon coercion and paid for through theft, was used to promote a collectivist sports event (which would not necessarily be a bad thing if it were completely voluntary and paid for voluntarily) at another government institution which trains people to accept "authority" and is also based upon coercion and paid for through theft. Seems like a match made in some mythical realm to me. Complaining about this seems like complaining that your left foot goes everywhere your right foot goes.

Why worry that "it doesn't send a good message to the public", who might think "we probably could have used our resources in a better way"? That money is not your resources. If that is a real worry to you, stop stealing. And as for "a better way", all things considered I'd much rather have the APD eating donuts in a donut shop or visiting football games instead of enforcing counterfeit "laws" against my neighbors. It would keep the harm to a minimum.

*
Donate?

Aerial trespasser shot at

Aerial trespasser shot at


An Albuquerque gas balloon pilot has been shot at as his balloon drifted over a corn field north of Lubbock, Texas.

If his balloon was over the property of another, then he was trespassing, and his act of calling enforcers to the scene was probably not justified. Of course, it wasn't particularly nice of the shooter to fire on the trespassing balloon, either. This is why I often include trespassing as an act that can justify a forceful response, but usually with the qualifier "sometimes" attached. I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser.

A lost person who is not damaging your property should probably just be told to leave, or escorted off. I have led lost people from my property in the past and made it into a pleasant experience for us both. (And not all of them were cute girls, either.) There is no need, in most instances, to get twitchy about it.

I wonder if the violent response to the balloon may have been an unintended consequence of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. If the corn field held a cash crop made artificially profitable by prohibition, an exaggerated response might have been inevitable, since discovery would have bad consequences (not that shooting at someone is the smartest way to avoid LEO attention).

A balloonist or two drifting over your land are technically trespassing, since I don't buy the lie that the sky is State property. However, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they weren't government employees. I don't think balloons can be steered all that well, and I don't think there is any harmful intent in most cases. However, I wouldn't support the arrest of a person who thought differently about their property rights.

*

Donate

Police chief on "code enforcement"

Here is the police chief's response to my column against "code enforcement" (with my comments in parentheses):

Some residents have bridled at the enforcement of the city codes while others
insist that it's long overdue.

("some residents", or only me?)

We've all seen cities in which there were no minimum standards for neighbors to
observe, where junked cars cause traffic hazards in the streets,...

(No, I have never seen a free city such as you describe. Where are these places? Why is a "junked car" more of a hazard than a 2011 Mercedes parked in the street? I can easily drive around either one, just as I do all the cop cars parked in the street at that one particular house in town. Why are these parked cop cars not a hazard to traffic?)

...where buildings lacking in repair drag down the property values of whole
neighborhoods,...

(So, buy them, fix them up, and raise the property values without using the threat of coercion against the owner. If they are dragging down property values, they should be very affordable. Right?)

...where mosquitoes breed disease,...

(I already addressed the real problems like this in my original article. Using voluntary cooperation rather than brute force.)

...and where homeless animals wander in hunger and misery through their short
and violent lives.

(So let people shoot or adopt the "homeless animals", once again solving the problem without spending one dime of stolen "tax" money or using coercion against anyone. If the animals truly are homeless they are the property of no one and these acts would not violate anyone's rights the way the city's methods do.)

A community like that is not were anyone would choose to live and not something
that the residents of Farwell would ever accept.

(Really? If that's true who are these "some residents" who have "bridled" over your enforcement emphasis? A free community, free of tax parasites who feel it is OK for them to trespass and violate property rights in others ways is exactly where I would choose to live and what I would enthusiastically embrace, not just "accept". Don't assume you understand me, or can speak for me, you tyrant.)

The codes of any city are not designed to establish a dictatorial rule over
citizens, nor would there be any benefit to the city if they did.

(They may not be "designed to establish a dictatorial rule", but that is the real world result, isn't it? And there is a benefit to "the city" at the expense of the residents: money and power. You wouldn't be doing it if this were not the case. And don't lie and claim that isn't true.)

Farwell's officers are only attempting to perform the minimum duty of any
government, that is to ensure that every individual can live in peace and
harmony with his neighbors.

(That is NOT "the minimum duty of any government"; protecting the rights of everyone from being violated by anyone is the minimum duty AND also the maximum duty. It is the ONLY legitimate duty possible for any government. This "code enforcement" nonsense actually violates that duty. Plus, using coercion and threats of violence are not ways to promote peace and harmony. Respecting property rights, and all other rights, of all individuals, even when they do things that are within their rights but that you don't approve of, are the only way to ensure peace and harmony. Your rights end where someone else's begin, no matter what you want. Your enforcement results in suspicion, discord, and could even result in actual violence.)

The citizen who finds a neighbor is intruding onto his property through his
failure to observe even the minimum level of repair or hygiene that might be
expected should not have to deal with the problem himself.

(Why not deal with it himself? That's his job, and no one else's, if it is something that should legitimately be dealt with. Some people might just need to grow up and either take responsibility for themselves or live with their cowardice. And a big part of being a responsible human is accepting that there are some things that are absolutely none of your business.)

Residents can be assured that code enforcement is intended to accomplish no
more than that level of law and order and mutual respect that are the foundation
of any happy community.

(No thank you. I have seen the results of "law and order" and the mass graves that result, and I want no part of it. There can be no mutual respect as long as one party thinks programs such as this are acceptable and OK.)

Farwell Police Chief LK [name withheld to protect the guilty]

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad


Thank your lucky stars, or at least the nature of reality, that I don't have political power and that I'm a libertarian. If I had the power and I believed the lie that political power gives a person (or group of people) the right or the authority to impose their opinions on others who are harming no one (in other words, if I were as evil, narcissistic, and delusional as past and current congresscritters and presidents), what "laws" would I impose?

First I would make it illegal to mow lawns. Probably outlaw the disgusting things altogether. Native species look better (in my opinion), take less resources and effort to keep alive, and are more sensible. Nor do they "go kudzu" on you. I'd probably outlaw all exotic species of outdoor plants, other than food crops. If it didn't grow right here 600 years ago, get rid of it or move it indoors.

Next I'd make it illegal to go out of your house without carrying a functional and loaded gun. There's no excuse for it anyway. If you can't be trusted with a gun, you simply can't be trusted. Period.

Then, littering would be a capital offense. In fact there would be a bounty on litterers. And since everyone would be required to be armed there would be no excuse to not collect.

Plus, I'd look after my own financial concerns. Everyone would be required to buy multiple copies of all my books, assuming that as a statist monster I would bother writing any books. I certainly wouldn't be writing the same ones.

The nation's pastimes would not escape my notice, either. The FOX network would be given a choice: put Firefly back on the air with an adequate budget and full cooperation with the cast and crew's desires and needs, and air it in the best timeslot imaginable, or lose your FCC license. (Yeah, I'd still love the show, I might just be rooting for the Feds in this case.)

There are probably a lot more nasty and evil things I would do, given a complete lack of principles and the power to "legally" damage the lives of others. I have strong opinions, as do most people, but I know my opinions are just that- opinions, and it would be wrong of me to impose my wishes on others who are not attacking, defrauding, stealing, or trespassing.

Yet, none of those things I mentioned are any more insane or harmful than actual "laws" passed by politicians and bureaucrats (and enforced by LEOs) in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Washington DC, and supported by regular "citizens". I mean, really, killing people for having some dried leaves in their possession? Who's the monster?

*

Donate

Three schools get new warning labels

Three schools get new warning labels


Three Albuquerque schools were tagged with graffiti described as "racist" and "sexually graphic". Since I think "public" schools probably deserve warning labels anyway, maybe this graffiti can serve that purpose.

After all, government indoctrination centers- "schools"- do serve as racism dissemination centers, and help reinforce it in the inmates.

And, like it or not, "public schools" are where most kids will learn about sex in one way or another if parents delay artificially the natural lessons they should be teaching at appropriate levels of physical, emotional, and mental development (which are far younger than parents might want to admit). Besides, "public" schools are the reproductive organs of The State.

And since these "schools" have no real owner who was harmed, who would seek restitution?

I don't think it is right or nice to tag or otherwise alter property that is not yours, but government schools are dependent upon making people believe that violations of property rights are OK under certain circumstances. I find it ironic that their supporters complain when people learn the lesson too well and act on it.

*

Donate?

"Code enforcement"

This is my latest column (10-7-2010) in the local paper, which has no website to link to:

I care how Farwell looks. I probably care more than the vast majority of Farwell residents, and I can offer concrete proof of my concern, backed up by my actions, to those who doubt me. However, I care about liberty even more.

All socialism has the myth of "the common good", also known as "the general welfare", at its heart [and nothing but socialism can result from it]. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve and even if you benefit from it. It places the desires of "society", or even just a portion of society, above the inalienable rights of the individual.

So I am particularly appalled by the recent emphasis on "code enforcement". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal". Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, or causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. Until that happens their property is none of your business, no matter what.

"Codes" are just a way of taking control of a person's property away from them and giving it to a mythical entity called "the majority". It is wrong even if you like it and even if you can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications. I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

Update: Check out the police chief's response, along with my added comments here.