"Rights, however, are not arbitrary. They apply
universally. Bailey had the same right as a
costumed enforcer to be left in peace, free from
threats of physical violence directed at his
person. They had no more right to waylay him at
gunpoint than he had a right to do the same to
them (or anyone else). Special outfits do not
confer special rights. Nor do those not wearing
special outfits have inferior rights (or no rights at all).
"This is a simple ethical concept but very
difficult for most people to accept -- having
been conditioned to never think in terms of
rights but only in terms of “legal” and “illegal.”"
One Thing Leads to Another
by eric
June 5, 2013
Kevin Bailey, 22, got into a
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dashcam-man-fires-cops-shot-dead-article-1.1362597>fatal
shootout with Solon, Ohio cops the other day. It
all began over a minor traffic violation --
failure to signal before changing lanes. Once he
had Bailey pulled over, the cop claimed he
“smelled marijuana” -- and it went bad from
there. Bailey took off, ran off the road and --
as the cops closed in on him, fired his gun at
the cops. The cops were better shots and Bailey was killed at the scene.
Naturlich, the cops are portrayed as “heroic” --
and have been exonerated of any wrongdoing.
Arguably, it was actually heroic -- if foolishly
so -- for Bailey to have attempted to get away
from the costumed enforcers who ultimately killed
him. This will shock some readers, no doubt.
Having been conditioned from youth to reflexively
kowtow to authority (however constituted) they
instinctively side with authority whenever there
is a confrontation. But, consider: What was
Bailey’s initial crime? Had he done anything to
justify being waylaid by costumed enforcers? Oh,
yes -- a “law” was (allegedly) ignored. But who
did Bailey harm by not using his turn signal
before changing lanes? Obviously, the answer is
-- no one. Yet this was -- is -- sufficient
pretext for costumed enforcers to begin a “harass
and collect” traffic stop. (Which, by the way,
now entitles the costumed enforcers to forcibly
take a DNA sample as well as perform a strip
search. Before you have been convicted of
anything. The Supreme Court has ruled both
measures to be “constitutional.” See
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/03/188291914/supreme-court-upholds-warrantless-collection-of-dna>here
and
<http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-02/politics/35453183_1_strip-searches-minor-offenses-jail-population>here.)
If we lived in a free country -- one in which
people were free to go about their business
without being stopped and fleeced at gunpoint by
costumed agents of the state -- Bailey would
never have been stopped in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DcrsrglxmeQ
And if he’d never been stopped, the next
escalation of the situation would not have happened:
“Is there anything illegal in the car?” Officer
Steven Davis asks. “There ain’t no weed?”
“I’m getting a whiff of it out here.”
Bailey apparently had “weed” -- or had recently
smoked it. Or perhaps had a prior conviction for
the victim-free “crime” of having/smoking/selling
“weed.” Like many people (especially black
people) Bailey probably knew that “I’m getting a
whiff of it out here” is cop-speak for “you are about to be arrested.”
At this point, Bailey no doubt began to feel The
Fear. He knew what was on deck. That this would
not be just a piece of payin’ paper for him.
Imagine yourself in his shoes. Two armed and
costumed flunkies of state authority are about to
forcibly pull you out of your car, throw you
face-down onto the hood of their state-provided
vehicle, then roughly cuff and roughly stuff you
into its back seat area for a trip to the clink.
Perhaps you have a “record” -- previous
convictions for non-crimes involving the
possession/use/sale of arbitrarily illegal
“drugs.” You have already been in a state cage --
and did not like it. You are desperate to avoid being put back into one. . . .
A second cop shows up and Bailey is “asked” --
that is, ordered -- to exit his vehicle. It is
midnight at the oasis. Time’s up. Fight -- or flight.
Or: Submit & Obey.
Bailey rolled up his window and took off. Just
before doing so, he texted his mother: “I love
you, I’m gone . . . I’m not going back to jail.”
Within minutes, Bailey would in fact be gone.
I don’t countenance Bailey’s firing on the cops.
But arguably, he was acting in self-defense. He
was being pursued by armed and hostile men,
determined to kidnap him and put him in a cage.
He hadn’t done anything -- in terms of causing
harm to another human being. Most people would
agree that had the men who shot Bailey not been
costumed men, Bailey would have had every right
to do as he did. To attempt to get away from them.
To resist.
So why, pray, does it become wrong to attempt to
get away -- to resist -- when the armed accosters are costumed?
It is purely about social conditioning, that’s
why. People are taught that anything is ok if it is “the law.”
And, the reverse.
So, it is ok -- “legal” -- to drink beer, to have
beer in your possession, even to make beer. But
it is not ok -- that is, it’s “illegal” -- to
consume/possess/grow pot. The former is socially
and legally sanctioned, the latter not.
It is purely arbitrary.
Rights, however, are not arbitrary. They apply
universally. Bailey had the same right as a
costumed enforcer to be left in peace, free from
threats of physical violence directed at his
person. They had no more right to waylay him at
gunpoint than he had a right to do the same to
them (or anyone else). Special outfits do not
confer special rights. Nor do those not wearing
special outfits have inferior rights (or no rights at all).
This is a simple ethical concept but very
difficult for most people to accept -- having
been conditioned to never think in terms of
rights but only in terms of “legal” and “illegal.”
The difference in perspective is everything.
We no longer have the right to be left in peace
the moment someone with a costume and a badge
believes we have done something “illegal” – because we no longer have rights.
It does not matter -- that is, it is no “legal”
defense -- to point out that the “illegal” act
has not caused any harm to anyone. Anything --
literally, anything -- the state decrees to be
“illegal” is, by definition, sufficient “legal” pretext to vitiate our rights.
This will not change until people -- enough
people to make a difference -- have an ethical
epiphany and instinctively as well as
intellectually recoil from the use of force
against people who haven’t done anything to anyone.
Until the only law that matters is: Live – and let live.
Throw it in the Woods?
http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/06/05/one-thing-leads-to-another/
--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
