-Caveat Lector-
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Sobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:25 PM
Subject: 'Many cops imagine they are in a war zone'
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
'Many cops imagine they are in a war zone'
When writing anything critical of a police officer, we newsmen are
trained from our cub reporter days to always lead with the caveat: "The
vast majority of police officers are fine, dedicated public servants, of
course, who bravely put their lives on the line each day ..."
Unfortunately, based on the hard evidence of 118 e-mail responses I've
received from our Boys in Blue or Beige to my May 16 column on Las Vegas
Metro Officer Bruce Gentner, who emptied a 14-round magazine into an
unarmed suspect but whose actions were found "justifiable" (as usual) by
a Las Vegas coroner's jury (after the officer explained the suspect
refused to raise his hands quickly enough and made a supposed "furtive
movement towards his waistband,") it appears that traditional,
rhetorical ratio may now have to be reversed.
I did, thank heavens, receive a few civil and thoughtful replies from
some of our armed centurions, acknowledging every shooting is different,
that a few may be wrongful, and sensibly asking further details on the
death of 32-year-old Las Vegan John Perrin, who was armed only with a
basketball.
More typical however, were comments like:
"You are a piece of trash and if there is any justice then you will
someday be placed under a magnifying glass and fried like the roach you
are." (Officer R.D.)
"Wear my shoes one damn day, you piece of sh-t ..." wrote Officer
T.M., delicately removing his own offending vowel. "Try a 40 cal. S&W
behind your ear."
"Just wanted to let you know that you are a no good, second guessing
coward who hides behind subjective reporting." (Officer J.W.)
"I hope soon you will be ... the victim of a mugging or some other
form of violent attack. (No signature.)
"i find the press mostly reprehensible. ... in the past the press
served a purpose. now they just serve themselves." (Officer D.P.)
"I wouldn't WASTE a bullet on your sorry butt. Someone like you with
one-sided opinions should not be authoring columns for the largest paper
in Las Vegas. Im sure that Soon you will get yours, probably from some
crazed person with a gun, like the ones that Police Officers are right
now protecting you from with their lives." (also unsigned.)
The train of invective went on, growing in volume as reports of my
criticism spread to police Internet discussion lists. In the end, 67
percent of the respondents -- 80 out of 118 officers -- appeared to be
doing their best to convince me that the armed "public servants" now
charged with our safety resemble nothing so much as a troop of
quasi-literate, homicidal trolls.
(So anxious were some of the officers to hurl the worst insults in
their limited lexicon that some even branded me a "liberal" -- an odd
label for a writer who favors universal machinegun ownership and
abolition of the IRS, with no "replacement tax" whatsoever.)
The most chilling, though, was probably the lengthy reply of T.B., an
officer with the Cleveland, Ohio police department (who, to his credit,
and unlike many of the critics above, did supply his full name -- I
withhold it here because I have no way to positively confirm his
identity.) T.B. firmly asserts police have every right to shoot unarmed
suspects "100 times, if necessary," and continues:
"Here's a word of advice: if you're going to be a know-it-all,
cop-hating, rhetoric-spewing moron please at least strive to be
original. First of all the officer never chooses the time and place. The
suspect alone makes that choice. Know why? Because police officers are
bound by law to act on any suspicious or criminal activity they observe.
That means that if you get stopped by a police officer you fucking
cooperate. End of story. Sorry to disappoint you but we're not the 'Klan
in blue' or the Gestapo or Government storm troopers. But an
individual's right to behave like an asshole in public ends when it
draws my attention."
I fear it may be significant that the most hostile invective appeared
to come from younger "street" officers. The more sober analyses, perhaps
predictably but also sadly, came mostly from officers who have already
hung up their shields.
Robert Flesh, for instance, a former detective sergeant with the West
Palm Beach Police Department, wrote:
"The Gentner/Vegas shooting of an unarmed American citizen (not a
'suspect,' since the victim had not committed any crime, nor was there
any 'reasonable' suspicion that he had) is totally indefensible on any
grounds. And this is true regardless of whether one chooses to believe
the alleged 'tightening of the arm muscles' and/or 'hand in the
waistband' BS or not. This was simply a bad shooting. So bad, in fact,
that I can't believe any HONEST cop, or prosecutor, or grand jury would
condone it.
"Let's face it, who wants this guy (or any cop like him) drawing down
on them the next time they are partying in Vegas and not in the mood to
be put face down on the pavement when they haven't done anything wrong?
And what Chief in his right mind would allow a loose cannon like Gentner
to work the streets when his MO is to empty his pistol into the backs of
citizens who (perhaps rightfully) tell him to fuck off when he wants to
shake them down for no legitimate reason whatsoever?
"Beyond this one case, what I see is a generalized 'siege', or 'police
state' mentality at work today in American law enforcement. Many police
officers are so caught up in fighting criminals that they forget that
the vast majority of American citizens are honest and law-abiding and
have certain 'RIGHTS' that are not to be violated by the police.
Consequently, many cops have started imagining they are in a war zone
where search and destroy ops are legal. In short, they only see two
kinds of people: cops and criminals ('us vs. the enemy'). ...
"What kind of bleeding-heart-liberal would say this kind of thing
about 'modern' law enforcement?" Det. Sgt. Flesh continues. "A whoring
reporter? A lying defense lawyer? A corrupt politician looking for
votes? Maybe they all would. But I happen to be a former patrolman and
detective sergeant from a high crime south Florida city, have earned
over 50 police commendations, made 400 to 500 felony arrests, have three
police-officer-of-the-year awards, was involved in several on-duty
shootings and was often accused of being 'overzealous,' myself.
"So haven't things gone just a wee bit too far when even veteran
street cops like myself start saying that many of today's officers are
ignoring the constitutional rights of honest citizens? And if police
officers in general really have adopted a dangerous and abusive 'police
state' or 'siege' mindset, isn't it time for American law enforcement to
step back from the firing line long enough to honestly evaluate itself,
and hopefully chart a new and more constitutional course, before it's
too damn late?"
Det. Sgt. Flesh added a personal note: "Vin, sorry to hear of the
threats. ... Hang in there. You are right, and anyone with a lick of
sense knows it."
# # #
Equally reassuring -- though still firmly in the one-third minority --
was the following from Joe Horn, a retiree from the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, now living in El Paso, Texas:
"Vin, the Officer Gentner case is the other side of the officer safety
mantra (which I label as administrative cowardice) that made well-armed,
armored, trained grown men cower in safety and cover instead of
attacking and taking the initiative away from the perps, while the two
teenagers killed innocents at Columbine High School.
"Gentner's 'furtive move' scenario has been abused so many times as to
be incalculable. 'Furtive move' really means that he got scared and
fired rather than wait for a clear and present danger to be presented.
Somehow this is OK, yet a citizen doing the same is held to a different
yet unconstitutional standard.
"The term 'outgunned' at Columbine was nonsense," Deputy Horn
continued. "The cops had organizational training, flak vests, hi-powered
rifles and sub-machineguns just as any military unit would have. What
were they waiting for while the shooting went on, the FBI HRT or a
surrender or a miracle?
"What modern law enforcement has forgotten in the atmosphere of
current local federally influenced training in siege mentality (fear
based training) that is funded and standardized (as are hiring
standards) by federal dollars is that American Civil Police are supposed
to REACT to a clear and present danger and they must wait till they SEE
that threat. To presume that a suspect is reaching for a firearm and to
kill that suspect before one sees and recognizes the threat one FEARS is
nothing in reality but a criminal and negligent act rooted in fear.
"The coroners' juries that sign off on these stories either are naive
about modern LE's penchant for terminal force or corrupt in protecting
the government entity from lawsuit. These officers have an allegedly
dangerous job, yet it has one of the lowest statistical death rates in
industry. (www.bnjs.gov or www.fbi.gov) Half of the annual LE deaths
(approx 160) that we are informed about in PR spin as part of the
"hazard" of the job are traffic deaths and heart attacks and accidents
NOT INVOLVING a hostile suspect.
"In any case, we are not drafted, are well trained, equipped and paid
to perform the duty. Our safety should be second to those we serve and
protect. Otherwise, WHY are we there and what good do we do if we are
not willing to risk all for the defenseless and weaker in our society?
Cops so possessed by fear should take safer employment elsewhere. Civil
suits are needed.
"The army is supposed to, upon orders, kill people and break things
without waiting for evidence of intent or present ability. It seems that
our domestic police are becoming more like soldiers -- very scared
soldiers at that -- occupying what some of them view as hostile
territory, more than public servants who are responsible to the citizens
and neighbors they are charged to protect and serve. To retain public
confidence, support and cooperation, this trend must soon be reversed.
"Finally, please understand that most in LE today are not obsessed
with their safety and on a daily basis silently do their jobs and
perform daily tasks that are nothing less than heroic, and which usually
go unnoticed.
"But there is a growing clique of administrators and willing
subordinates in LE from Federal down to local, who resent the restraints
of the Constitution, fear the law-abiding armed citizen and somehow
relate that citizen (some 70,000,000 strong) to the latest pop-up
knee-jerk fear in Law Enforcement and rationalization for gun control
and fear of citizens: The Militia, all of whom that I have seen are fat,
over 50, out of breath and (finally) very, very, few in number,
regardless of the fund-raising histrionics generated by the Southern
Poverty Law Center.
"Thanks for your insightful article."
Thank you, Joe. (Other cops have started calling Joe names on the
Internet, and even threatening his life, he reports -- absurdly alleging
he accepted payment for writing the above. Needless to say, I don't pay
former police officers to send me e-mail.)
# # #
As I've toured the country this year, speaking to freedom-loving
groups from California to Rhode Island, from Arizona to Illinois,
concerned folks have frequently asked me how close I think we are to a
full-fledged police state in America. In the past, I've tried to be
somewhat reassuring, pointing out we're not to that point yet, though
the trends (suspension of the Bill of Rights whenever anyone suspects
"drugs" may be involved; outright abrogation of the Second Amendment
right of individual Americans to be better armed than the constabulary
or other divisions of the standing army) look bad.
I must now regretfully conclude we're a lot closer to an outright
police
state than I would have wanted to admit.
Time after time, my uniformed correspondents in the past week set
"officer safety" as their top priority, reciting as though it were a
memorized catechism "My first priority is to get home to my wife and
kids when the shift is over."
When I ask whether that means we can expect to again be abandoned, as
the Korean shopkeepers were when the L.A. police withdrew from their
neighborhoods during the Rodney King riots, I receive no answer. When I
ask whether the best way to make sure "all officers get home to their
families when the shift is over" might not be to arbitrarily declare a 9
p.m. curfew, and shoot on sight any black, Hispanic, hippie, or
suspected newsman found on the streets after that hour, the reply is a
projectile diarrhea of foul language or ... silence.
These officers contend they have no choice but to break down the doors
of non-violent people in the middle of the night, looking for guns or
drugs, because "We have no choice but to enforce all the laws on the
books." When I point out most states still have laws on the books
against cohabitation by unmarried adults, and ask if they're going to
start enforcing those laws, even against their brother officers, the
response is ... silence.
These officers contend they are only following orders, and that they
have a right to shoot any citizen who does not, in turn, promptly follow
"their" orders. ("The fact of the matter is that if Mr. Dopehead, Paul
[sic] Perrin, would have followed the officers commands this incident
would not have occurred," chirps that little ray of sunshine, Officer
E.J. Pereira of Deer Park, Texas. "The death of Perrin was an
unfortunate outcome of a CRIMINAL not taking the directions of an
officer seriously," concurs Constable D. Hermann, of Vancouver, Canada
-- referring to a man who was not wanted, never formally arrested, and
not found in possession of any drug or weapon -- illegal, "controlled,"
or otherwise.)
The hostile two-thirds of my correspondents repeated endless
variations on the "No right to criticize if you haven't walked in our
shoes" rhetoric -- even though cities like Las Vegas "used" to have
civilian police auxiliaries, which have now been almost universally
eliminated in a campaign to "professionalize" our police forces, with
the side-effect of isolating cops even further into a separate,
mercenary class.
(Besides which, does that mean the officers now also consider
themselves above criticism from such other "cowardly desk-sitters" as
mayors, county commissioners, and city councilmen? I seem to recall the
Roman legions once grew similarly tired of answering to "soft
civilians," and took matters into their own hands.)
I asked my e-mail correspondents whether there are any orders they
would "not" enforce. Would they, for instance, put their salary and
their pension and their loyalty to "the force" and their brother
officers ahead of any qualms they might have about going door-to-door to
confiscate the firearms of otherwise law-abiding folk? ("Never in
America"? Last week California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced
citizens there have six months to surrender semi-automatic 1950s SKS
rifles previously considered legal. http://www.sksbuyback.org/)
Would the officers shoot anyone who tried to run away rather than
obeying new orders that newsmen and troublesome ACLU members be put
aboard boxcars to areas where they can be more easily supervised? If
current unconstitutional restrictions on the Second Amendment were
extended to the First, would they break down the doors and smash the
presses of any newspaper that published anti-government editorials
without submitting them to government censors in advance for a
"three-day cooling off period"?
And the answer was ... silence.
Even after Amnesty International released a report last fall warning
America is indeed approaching police-state status -- pointing out it's
easy to get a list of cops killed in the line of duty these days, but
that no comprehensive compilation is made of citizens killed by police
officers -- these officers throw a virtual fit at the suggestion that a
sane and responsible commentator might report that cops in some American
cities now possess a virtual license to kill "low-lifes" with impunity.
Instead I was repeatedly told I must be motivated by a "deep-seated
grudge against all police officers" based on some early life experience,
or even that I must be psychologically disturbed.
("Let me guess, you are a meth user? Had bad contacts with Law
Enforcement? Got picked on your entire life? Don't be afraid to admit
your many flaws," wrote officer J.W., in a considerate follow-up to his
earlier "coward" remarks.)
This theory was first developed by Comrade Stalin, of course, who held
that mere opposition to the policies of the state was prima facie
evidence of mental illness.
Failing that, the officers pathetically whimper that a columnist who
points out that we have (as the headline on my May 16 column expressed
it) "A different set of laws for our Killer Cops," must be doing so
"just to sell newspapers."
Note the underlying anti-capitalist posture. All newspaper purchases
remain voluntary, of course, while all police salaries that I know of
are seized from our paychecks or mortgage payments under threat of
force. Beyond that, the main way most citizens encounter police is when
the citizen is randomly singled out to pitch in another hundred-dollar
road tax in the form of a "ticket" for exceeding a "speed limit"
arbitrarily set at least 10 mph below the consensus speed at which most
vehicles travel -- the speed at which even police know travel is safest.
Fail to pay up and you'll eventually be dragged to jail in chains -- a
collection method which the most powerful newspaper baron in history
could only dream of using on his city's stubborn non-subscribers.
Add to this the new rage among cops for seizing any large sum of cash
they stumble across, keeping at least half to buy fancy new equipment,
and daring the owner to "prove it's not drug money," and the spectacle
of these systematic looters accusing anyone else of base financial
motivation verges on the hilarious.
Anyway, for the record, it's a rare modern newspaper that sells as
many as 10 percent of its copies on newsstands. Ninety percent of
today's papers are delivered direct to subscribers' homes -- the days
when grimy urchins hawked papers to passersby in the streets, shouting
"Extra! Read all about it! Killer Cops!" are 60 years past.
Today, a vociferous minority of readers is far more likely to
criticize the paper for exposing a popular basketball coach's recruiting
violations, than anyone is likely to complain if the paper simply turns
a blind eye and continues as the team's top cheerleader.
No, criticizing the local guardians of law and order is hardly a
crowd-pleaser or a recipe for big sales ... not that, in 25 years in
this business, working for or running eight newspapers in six states, I
have ever once had a publisher or circulation manager enter my office
and urge me to write more about Topic A, or less about Topic B, in order
to "sell more newspapers."
# # #
My conclusion, based on my recent voluminous correspondence from the
nation's on-line police officers? More and more of these government
agents apparently see themselves in a battle of "us against the
a-holes," with the a-holes being, in essence, all the rest of us.
I keep trying to warn the young officers that this is a disastrous
course -- that once they have used up all the enormous reserve of
goodwill which the people at large bear them (people who were brought
up, as I was, on elementary-school primers portraying "friendly officer
Brown" helping Dick and Jane across the street), once they finally
succeed in convincing a sizeable portion of the populace that the police
now constitute a hostile occupying army which believes it has arbitrary
powers to shoot and kill any of us who fail to "follow orders" quickly
enough, they will discover to their chagrin that they are alone and
outnumbered 300-to-1 on those dark and lonely streets, in a nation still
reassuringly well armed.
Up till now, the average officer in trouble could count on the average
American passer-by to at least help him call for back-up ... if not
actually pull a weapon from the vehicle and pitch in on the officer's
side.
Now, that will change. Officer Michael O'Malley of Wayne, New Jersey
may have put it best:
"The shooting incident involving Las Vegas Metro Police Officer Bruce
Gentner is the latest example of a disturbing trend in police work.
There have been a lot of high-profile incidents in recent years
involving shootings where questionable judgement was used. Police
officers are quick to give their support to their fellow officer in
these cases and to applaud the outcome when these officers are
acquitted.
"I suggest to you that this support is a facade. Convincing ourselves
that these shootings are justifiable serves as a kind of 'insurance
policy' in case we should find ourselves in the same tenuous position.
But if you really believe in your heart of hearts that it is defensible
to shoot a man who is holding a bottle of iodine because he refuses to
do what you tell him to do, perhaps it is time to consider an alternate
career."
"Officer Gentner and his attorney were able to beguile a sympathetic
jury with an account of the thoughts that were (ostensibly) going
through Gentner's mind at the time: a security guard had been recently
shot at in the same area; the decedent fit the description of a known
drug dealer, etc. Gentner's observations of Perrin are presented in such
a manner as to create the illusion that they are in some way sinister,
instead of merely commonplace.
"The descriptions read like a parody of every bad police report I have
ever read: He 'gesture(ed) toward his waist' (Is that the same as
'reaching?'); Gentner 'saw arm muscles tighten up' (any arm movement,
including raising one's hands over one's head, will cause arm muscles to
tighten up.) Finally he observed a 'dark, bulging object,' which sounds
portentious, though I'm not quite sure what it means. And what exactly
is it about a dark, bulging object that entitles one to shoot its
possessor without clearer knowledge of precisely what the object is?
"Ultimately, the coroner's jury decided that the officer's very
subjective fears, rather than the objective facts, justified the use of
deadly force. That is a frightening conclusion for the jury to have
reached. It is even more disturbing if it be the standard by which
police officers decide between life and death.
"Although I find Mr. Suprynowicz's writing to be inflammatory and
suspect that he dislikes police in general, I must throw my lot with him
and Mr. Horn on this issue. I do not think it is in our long-term
interest to give knee-jerk support to every officer who finds himself in
a jackpot over a bad shooting. The eventual public and political
backlash against this type of incident will be crippling to all of us,
and quite possibly will cost a few of us our lives."
--
Arthur Sobey
Media Communications Director
The Action Class For Therapeutic Cannabis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
402-379-5732
Contributions in support of medical freedom can be made
to the Class Action For Therapeutic Cannabis at:
Lifeservices
Post Office Box 4314
Boca Raton, Florida 33429
561-750-0554
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***********************************
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
For Discussion List:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
text in body: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Video Finder, Free Catalogs, Links, Sweepstakes, What-Not:
http://www.msen.com/~daugh/store.htm
***********************************
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
