Comments on Pro Libertate: The Kitty Genovese Effect: How The Regime Endures (Updated)

Excellent article today on Lew Rockwell.com.Thank ...

2008-12-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

Excellent article today on Lew Rockwell.com.Thank you.
There is no excuse for the Tazer. Visit america in the near future? Don't think so. R,Norway.

I've noted time and again that many people, maybe ...

2007-09-25T23:09:00.000-06:00

I've noted time and again that many people, maybe even most, have no problem with being a slave just so long as its THEIR master who holds the whip.

"And I promise that I will not permit this kind of...

2007-09-21T11:12:00.000-06:00

"And I promise that I will not permit this kind of thing ever to happen in my presence without doing whatever I can to stop it."

I make the same promise.

It's ironic that it's a JEW who has been treated t...

2007-09-20T03:22:00.000-06:00

It's ironic that it's a JEW who has been treated this way. How many times have Jews shut down free speech because someone criticized the Jews? Said something less than flattering about a Jewish person, Judaism or about Israel? And these are Jews of both the liberal and conservative persuasion who have hounded anyone for mentioning the "J" word.

Free speech is for everyone not just for those who suffered a "Holocaust".

But the state has removed our protections so that ...

2007-09-20T03:15:00.000-06:00

But the state has removed our protections so that we can't do anything about it. It is practically legal for the state to do such things because of things like the Patriot Act and loss of habeas corpus. Prior to 9/11, these incidents were less common because the state feared the lawsuits that would have followed ... but not any more.

And now with MORE Hate Speech laws coming into effect, this will bind further the arms of the citizenry to do anything about it.

It is clear that to reverse this situation, we must change the laws that govern the nation. We must get the First Amendment rights back by removing Hate Laws and so-called anti-terrorism laws. Every person who kept quiet when they saw someone they didn't like saying something they didn't agree with get censored or persecuted/prosecuted contributed to the current state of affairs.

It's easy to blame it all on the neocons or Bush or whoever, but they certainly couldn't have passed these laws without the help of the people. Politicians are easy targets but it's often overlooked that the politicians that we get are really reflections of ourselves. If society condones suppression of free speech, politicians are going to exploit that fact and pass laws that do exactly that and get the bonus of obtaining more power for themselves.

What I'm talking about is a CULTURE CHANGE is needed. And I'm afraid the liberals have been the bigger party to the sorry state that we find ourselves in today, more than the conservatives although the liberals like to think of themselves as 'free speech' people over the conservatives. It's Ted Kennedy trying to sneak in more Hate Laws on the back of an amnesty bill, not a conservative and you can be sure Hillary will sign off every Hate speech law that passes her desk if she becomes president.

This is the thing about liberals: though they complain a lot about the conservatives trying to impose morality on everyone it is the LIBERALS who want to legislate 'morality' on people. And traditionally, it has been the liberals who have been the ones to stifle freedoms in this country, they've been the ones who back anti-free speech laws, gun control laws and so on. They've been more against 'freedom' than the Republicans traditionally. That's why you have a Republican, Ron Paul, sticking up for the Constitution, and not a Democrat. and you have the liberals helping to pass things like the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and so on. Yeah, I know Bush is a conservative and a lot of things have happened under him but you can't deny that it is the liberals who have laid the groundwork for these things to be passed, long before he came onto the scene.

Republicans are dumb but Democrats are hypocrites (people who do harm in the name of being do-gooders).

The old Birch Society slogan, "Support Your Local ...

2007-09-19T11:19:00.000-06:00

The old Birch Society slogan, "Support Your Local Police and Keep Them Independent" may have been valid in the 1960s and 1970s, when local police officers were generally reasonable and courteous. Between the moral degeneration of our society, as reflected in the police officers, and the increasing takeover of law enforcement by the Feds (remember Clinton's 100,000 cops on the streets?), there is no reason to "support" law enforcement authorities anymore.

Consider what happened to a 70 year old woman in Orem, Utah, who was arrested merely for refusing to respond to an LEO with regard to the "crime" of having a brown lawn. Granted, she may be a crank and the village commie, and the uber-leftist Gloria Allred is using this situation to embarrass a traditionally Mormon community in the MSM. However, it is just another example of the degenerate condition of this nation. The choice between "blue state" nanny statism and "red state" fascism is about like having a choice between cancer and heart disease.

Perhaps a loud and comic non-sequitur could defuse...

2007-09-19T00:46:00.000-06:00

Perhaps a loud and comic non-sequitur could defuse the escalating situation? Something along the lines of : "Hey! I think that's the cop I saw raping the neighbor's goat!" Or similar random irreverent (& loud) musing.

...

A better line could've been yelled: "Whatcha get 'im fore? Assault with a deadly question?"..."You guys really caught a criminal mastermind!"

Or, perhaps the one line sure to break up a would-be deadly assault by (a) cop(s): "DOOOOONUTS! FRESH AN' HOT, COME AN' GET'EM!!!"

Will, your other episodes you mentioned are worthw...

2007-09-18T22:43:00.000-06:00

Will, your other episodes you mentioned are worthwhile, but you're wasting your time propping up this moron at UFL. The story linked from Drudge says it all. No comment required...sigh.

However, there's a thought that came to my mind related to David Snyder's "whirlwind" treatment that can be extended to the populace at large these days. As you significantly pointed out, he is also accused of siccing the police on his opponents/critics. Hmmm, what goes around, does indeed come around eventually, eh?

That said, the point I'm trying to make about the above is that most people are, or would be, just like this Mr. Snyder and have no qualms about siccing the po'leece on opponents at the first opportunity if they were gifted with a power position. They're not really staunchly opposed to police brutality or misconduct in principle, only when they themselves become the unfortunate recipients of it.

Keith -- I was JUST going to make a similar sugges...

2007-09-18T18:54:00.000-06:00

Keith -- I was JUST going to make a similar suggestion about the right to keep and bear non-lethal arms, such as Tasers.

liberranter, you brush up against an important point: Recording and broadcasting police misbehavior represents an important counter-offensive against police lawlessness. Which is why police agencies are starting to use anti-wiretapping laws in an attempt to criminalize video activism of this kind.

Perhaps a loud and comic non-sequitur could defuse...

2007-09-18T17:57:00.000-06:00

Perhaps a loud and comic non-sequitur could defuse the escalating situation? Something along the lines of : "Hey! I think that's the cop I saw raping the neighbor's goat!" Or similar random irreverent (& loud) musing.

Crude? Certainly. Maybe good for a laugh from the crowd. Even better if you can get some of the renta-thugs laughing at each other's behavior...

A better line could've been yelled: "Whatcha get 'im fore? Assault with a deadly question?"..."You guys really caught a criminal mastermind!"

Calm and peaceful interposition of oneself between...

2007-09-18T17:44:00.000-06:00

Calm and peaceful interposition of oneself between a cop and the illegitimate target of an arrest would likely result only in bodily injury or death to the would-be intercessor. Such an outcome would, however, serve a salutary purpose: A demonstration to those present of the criminal evil of those carrying badges and purporting to represent "law and order."

Three cheers for camera phones and YouTube!

Drawing a firearm to deter a tazer assault is an u...

2007-09-18T17:23:00.000-06:00

Drawing a firearm to deter a tazer assault is an unnecessary escalation of force. Perhaps we should start packing tazers and handcuffs.

And another thing, yelling might just be a cultura...

2007-09-18T16:14:00.000-06:00

And another thing, yelling might just be a cultural thing. You yell at one person, and it snaps them out of whatever their doing. You yell at another, and it gets their back-up; gets them more committed to their course of action and damn the consequences. How would a hall full of Japanese react? Bad form on the student, and all the other students would inch away, silently. His eventual ouster would have been done privately, and as such it would have been easier for him to bow out without feeling as if he is losing face.

[I can't believe I'm playing the devil's advocate here.]

My main point is that a regime may have a lot of immorality to it and it still my not be legitimate to fight it by force of arms.

Yeah, like what the Code Pink women did when Rever...

2007-09-18T16:09:00.000-06:00

Yeah, like what the Code Pink women did when Reverend Yearwood was being assaulted. You can hear them on the Youtube shouting, "Take it easy!" and "He's a minister!" At least they voiced some kind of protest at what they were witnessing. We're obliged to do something, I think.

Ok, just saw your comment and remembered the libra...

2007-09-18T16:08:00.000-06:00

Ok, just saw your comment and remembered the library video. Another good point about getting badge numbers. I think we are in vehement agreement in groping towards how to stop the police from abusing people like they did here. I'm just spit-balling too.

Ok, so I yell "Let him go!" Better yet, I get a c...

2007-09-18T16:04:00.000-06:00

Ok, so I yell "Let him go!" Better yet, I get a chant going to that effect. Then what? Is that all I can do? Will it even work? Maybe, I could see it possibly shaming them into letting him go. So I see your point.

But I gotta say, that would seem to fit in with my line about whining to the cops, which seems to me to be a fairly emasculated way of responding to things.

I'm a little older and so not overly concerned with my "permanent record," and if this were, say, one of my nephews, I could imagine laying my hands on one of these cops.

But again, I'm trying to picture some effective physical way to even slow this down that doesn't result in my almost useless arrest or beat-down, and I'm not seeing it.

The last clause to Mr. Grigg's last comment ["attempting a citizen's arrest -- and dealing with the inevitable reaction from the goon squad -- might be an effective way to shame other bystanders into taking action"] essentially means "incite a riot". From the riots and near riots I've seen, they don't end up too well for the overwhelming majority of participants or bystanders, and would seem a disproportionate response to the harm involved. Sad to say, but after all is said and done, the kid only got tasered. If I attempt a citizen's arrest of, say, that big dude, in that confined aisle, someone's bones --mine, his, someone just standing there, could get broken. And for what?

If the cops wouldn't reason with the kid in the first place, there'd be no reasoning with them moments later by a third party. They committed to their call; they're operating under color of the law for that moment. One might as well leave it to the courts to sort out later, which courts, by the way, presently, at least in my opinion, don't compare to Stalin's.

I can change a tire. If I see a car on the side of the road and a driver who needs that kind of help, I can think, ok, I can do this, pull-over, and help.

But if I can't see any way of stopping this, of diffusing this, then I don't see what good even yelling would do, and it might cause more harm. Remember, we all seem to be in agreement that the cops were in the right to ask him to leave or not bogart the questioning session.

Keith, I admire your concision, and will try to em...

2007-09-18T15:51:00.000-06:00

Keith, I admire your concision, and will try to emulate it. :-)

To your suggestion I would add only that something in the flavor of "Let him go you BASTARDS!" might sometimes be useful, because it's provocative. Getting one or two of the goons to peel away would break up the mass and give the guy on the ground a chance to avoid suffocation or a broken leg, at least.

Christopher, I'm spit-balling here....The LEAST we...

2007-09-18T15:48:00.000-06:00

Christopher, I'm spit-balling here....

The LEAST we can do is to demand that the police back off. Some observers at UCLA did this, and demanded badge numbers, during that horrible tazing incident at the library a year ago. That's a form of interposition, and if that's all we can do then it's better than nothing.

Getting in the face of an abusive police officer takes a LOT of guts, but a peaceful act of principled self-assertion might be the difference between a helpless person "merely" getting roughed up, or suffering life-threatening violence.

We're dealing with bullies, remember, and sometimes -- not always or often, but sometimes -- calling them on their bullying is enough to get them to ease off a bit.

And don't ignore the fact that the point of this police behavior is to teach an object lesson to observers; this is why they ALWAYS yell "Don't resist!" whether or not resistance is being made. Perhaps there is some value simply in letting other witnesses know what is really going on: "They're LYING! He's NOT resisting -- and they're going to Tase him! This is ILLEGAL!"

There was one young lady with red hair who tried to admonish the security goons to back off at the Kerry event; where were the guys?

When somebody tries to intervene an arrest threat is always made. This is where the Just War calculus comes into play, I think: Is the victim going to suffer severe, life-threatening violence? Is there a legitimate chance of preventing this if you give the cops another problem to deal with?

I'm still groping my way through this troublesome issue, but it seems clear to me that absolutely the WORST thing to do in a situation of this sort is nothing.

At the very least, a verbal protest would have bee...

2007-09-18T15:29:00.000-06:00

At the very least, a verbal protest would have been appropriate. "Let him go!" Standing by in silence is tacit approval and consent.

Let's talk about citizen's arrests and interposing...

2007-09-18T15:03:00.000-06:00

Let's talk about citizen's arrests and interposing oneself. In this instance, how, exactly, would one go about it? I imagine first you have go get off butt, and out into the aisle. Then what do you do? Whine to the cops? Stand in their way -their way out? Block their path? Touch them? Do what exactly? I'm not kidding. I know some things about public speaking and some things about using my body --sports, dancing, some martial arts fundamentals, and I'm wondering what combination of speach and action might have diffused this situation once the cops moved him into the middle aisle. Based on the whole video, I see really no possible way to successfully interupt this unfortunate course of events, unless I had been seated very close by and unusually responsive/responsible. Since there would have been no chance of success, a sort of just war theory would have compelled me to mere witnessing.

Anonymous -- the spelling-challenged one, I specif...

2007-09-18T13:36:00.000-06:00

Anonymous -- the spelling-challenged one, I specify -- please re-read what I wrote on the subject of a citizen's arrest:

"A couple of generations ago, it wouldn't have been unusual for one or more men in such circumstances to attempt a citizen's arrest, which was certainly justified here."

Citizen's arrests have taken place and by witnessed within the memory of some now living,myself among them. My point was not that this would work today, but rather that this approach was sometimes effective before we became whatever it is we are now.

That being said, this must also:

In circumstances like those we're presently reviewing, attempting a citizen's arrest -- and dealing with the inevitable reaction from the goon squad -- might be an effective way to shame other bystanders into taking action. Then again, it might not. In my present mood, I'm betting on "not."

I thought that the crowd cheering the police was t...

2007-09-18T12:21:00.000-06:00

I thought that the crowd cheering the police was the most telling part of the confrontation. Here we have a loud mouth (albeit a loudmouth with the freedom to be one) being treated poorly for the crime of being tactless and the crowd approves with gusto. We have fallen far when we think it is okay for those we disagree with to be treated so. Not to mention that we stand idly by.

Kevin, the Founders wouldn't have countenanced arr...

2007-09-18T11:44:00.000-06:00

Kevin, the Founders wouldn't have countenanced arresting this kid. But they most likely wouldn't have thought it improper to ask him not to Bogart the Q-and-A period, as he showed every inclination to do.

"He's been speaking for two hours, I think I can have two minutes," this kid stated as Kerry prompted him for his question, and others behind him urged him to move along. After reiterating his question, he quickly said, "...and I have two more questions," which would be at least three more than the people waiting patiently behind him had been able to ask.

At that point it was reasonable to think that the student, rather than asking a question, may have been trying to hijack the event.

As I indicated above, the student was asking very pertinent questions. He was well-prepared and knew his brief. There's no reason he couldn't have composed a pointed, challenging question with a brief, informative preface, and then sat down to allow others the chance to exercise their free speech rights.

My view is that asking a "disruptive" person to leave a private function, then insisting that he do so, then compelling him to do so, is NOT the same as placing him under arrest.

Those who organized and paid the expenses to hold an event have a kind of property right in it, I believe -- at least in the sense that they can properly expect a certain reciprocal courtesy from those invited to participate. They can't properly suppress questions, but they can set a format and insist that participants abide by it.

In this situation, I think the police would have been justified in escorting the student out; recall, I noted that the kid, after being manhandled away from the mic, said if the police let him go, he would leave. The way the police handled the situation up to that point was excessive, and beyond that point it became an unambiguous crime.

You're entirely right, of course, about the passivity of the audience being a testament to the effectiveness of government edu-mah-cay-shun.

There's no reason why the Kampus Kops couldn't hav...

2007-09-18T10:58:00.000-06:00

There's no reason why the Kampus Kops couldn't have simply dragged this kid from the auditorium (the right to freedom of speech doesn't extend to hijacking a public event) and barred him from re-entering the event, rather than putting him under arrest. He may have been obnoxious, but he was entirely correct to resist arrest through peaceful, if assertive, non-cooperation.

Help me understand this, Will. If police have the right to arrest, why does the student have the right to resist arrest?

Would America's Founding Fathers say that the police had the right to arrest this student? I think not. I'm confident that there were more frequent and more emotional questions and disagreements (from an armed citizenry) in townhalls and public assemblies 200 years ago. I have always been amused to see this on cable TV when the Prime Minister gets heckled by those stodgy old Brits in the House of Commons. Here, in this August Body, is chatter, booing, and a constant lively feedback. Kind of like the Free Market.

If the tasered student was "hijacking" the assembly, then those assembled could boo him down. Market feedback. But those assembled students have been trained to sit quietly and accept whatever is told them without comment. And an energetic questioner seems "out of place," "undignified," or "obnoxious" simply because he's exercising rights the Founders fought for.

Kerry was passive and evasive. If he had been a true statesman/leader, he would have engaged the student and quickly won the "debate." On to the next question. (I give credit to Tony Blair for being able to field the objections of would-be "hijackers" in the House of Commons. Certainly more of a statesman than Kerry.)

It's a circle: there is no free speech in docile Amerika any more because nobody wants to speak, nobody wants to be "judgmental"; but nobody wants to speak because authorities -- in subtle or not-so-subtle ways -- tell us to keep quiet and stay in line.

They have been doing this since we were kids. John Holt pointed out that this was the major function of government schooling.

Mediocrity seems like middle-of-the-road, while tyranny seems "extremist." But they are related.

Every time I see one of these Youtubes (it seems l...

2007-09-18T09:31:00.000-06:00

Every time I see one of these Youtubes (it seems like there's a new one every week -- as soon as they surface I rush to pro libertate), I always wonder, when exactly did we have the debate over the laws on resisting arrest, disobeying police orders and the like? I don't remember getting to vote or have a say on any of this, but clearly, it could be fatal if I were to object to being subjected to any of these laws. I have an idea that they were passed without debate or notice in the media, by state legislatures and city councils at the request of police union lawyers. It seems a shame that the people who take my taxes turn around and use the money to rig the system even more in their favor.