-Caveat Lector-

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/khan2.html



Watch Where You Point That Weapon!

by Casey Khan



The other night I was watching television, fixated on the DC area sniper shootings. 
They
were showing footage of the lock down on I-95 after one of the shootings. The footage
included a scene of a man who was pulled over in a white van. Just for driving a white 
van,
the man had the pleasure of being forced out of his vehicle by three police officers at
gunpoint. The three officers pointed their weapons directly at the man even though he
posed no immediate threat to the officers. The man proceeded to lie down on the
pavement. With that, the footage ended.

This brings us to a disturbing trend that has been occurring in police agencies and
departments across the country. Police are more apt to brandish weapons and aim in on
the citizens they have sworn to protect. Much of this can be explained by the recent
militarization of U.S. law enforcement. The spirit of posse comitatus has been 
weakened by
incidents like: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales, Amidu Diallo, and now the DC sniper. 
All
these incidents have shown just how much the government is willing to threaten us in 
order
to "protect" us.

Let’s say Congress decides to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and allows for an overtly
military stance amongst law enforcement organizations. That would still not excuse the
pointing of weapons against innocent civilians. Why? Even in the military, unlike the 
recent
illustrations by U.S. law enforcers, there are strict rules regarding the use of 
weapons and
deadly force. Let’s examine some military rules for weapons safety and apply them to a
militarized law enforcement.

The U.S. Marine Corps represents the best marksmanship techniques and philosophy of any
branch of the U.S. armed services. Here are the safety rules, which govern Marines in 
the
handling of all firearms whether on the rifle range, in garrison, in field training, 
or in
combat. These rules are universal and should be applied by any handler of firearms. 
First,
it is important to note that these rules assume control of a firearm by an individual.

Treat every weapon as if it was loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
Keep your weapon on safe, until you intend to fire.

Violation of any of these rules could lead to punishment as a safety violator with a 
punch in
the face by an NCO, a written reprimand, or prosecution under the UCMJ, depending on
what may have occurred during the violation. You will notice that these rules do not
mention if the weapon is loaded or not. It does not matter. All weapons are assumed to 
be
loaded. What matters is intent and responsibility for individual actions. The Marine 
Corps
knows well that weapons are inanimate objects, and are powerless without human actions
to employ them. In a logical manner, we can correctly make the following implications 
to
the following rules.

If your weapon is off safe, then you intend to fire.
If your finger is on the trigger, then you intend to fire.
If you point a weapon at anything, then you intend to shoot it.

Whether an individual "means" to or not, that individual is responsible for the weapon 
he is
controlling, and his intent is quite clear, especially when in violation of the rules. 
The last
rule’s implication is the most important. It will be granted that a weapon has to be 
pointed
in some direction when not employed, and that direction is either directly up or down 
to
maintain a safe situation. Most importantly, a weapon should not be pointed at other
people, unless the individual intends to shoot at other people. Which leads us to the 
next
logical implication.

If you point your weapon at a person, then you intend to shoot that person.



These rules are quite simple and easy to follow. Now let’s apply them to some actions
recently taken by law enforcement officers.

In this first picture we see an officer standing in the middle of traffic after one of 
the recent
DC sniper shootings. The weapon he is carrying looks to be a carbine version of an 
AR-15
or M-16. Let’s look for any rule violations. It looks as if he is treating the weapon 
as a
loaded one, with a magazine inserted, with his finger extended off the trigger in good
technique. From this picture, it is hard to decipher if his weapon is on safe. So like 
good
Americans, we’ll assume he is innocent until proven guilty, even though this is 
something he
is not doing for the owner of the red truck. Where is the officer pointing the weapon? 
In this
case he clearly points the weapon at the red truck. This officer, whether he means to 
or
not, intends to shoot this red truck. Should he shoot this red truck? Probably not, no
warrant has been issued nor has any probable cause occurred.

In this case, using the weapons safety rules combined with the highest law of this 
land, he
is in clear violation. Looking to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution we see, "No 
person
shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." It is 
clear in the
case of this officer, he is intending to shoot the red truck. This red truck is the 
property of
the owner, who is most likely the driver or someone associated with the driver. 
Shooting
the property in this case is tantamount to destroying the property. Destroying 
property is
another way of depriving someone of his property. It is clear that this officer 
intends to
deprive the red truck from its owner without due process of law. With this intent, he 
is
threatening to civil society.



Let’s look at another picture and apply the same weapons handling rules. This officer
working for the U.S. Border Patrol is carrying what looks like a "tech-9." He seems to 
be
treating this weapon as if it was loaded, with his finger off the trigger, and we’ll 
assume the
weapon is on safe. However, he has pointed the weapon at this innocent child and the 
man
holding him. The man holding the child is not threatening the child, nor is he 
threatening
the officer. It is unfortunate, because the officer intends to shoot both the boy and 
the man
in this situation. Shooting these people may harm or kill them.

In this case, the Border Patrol claims it was concerned about the safety and 
protection of
this child. They chose to protect him by doing what many law enforcement organizations
now do. They protect him by threatening his life. The man holding the child in the 
picture
did no such thing, nor did his family. However, the state has other ideas about 
"protection."
Once again we have an example of an officer with an intent that is threatening to civil
society.

These examples lead us to question the true aims of current law enforcement. Are they
serving to protect, or to control? The recent lock downs on I-95 give little 
indication of
protection. If they wanted to reduce people’s outside exposure to the beltway sniper,
wouldn’t they free up traffic to allow the innocent to seek cover? 99.99% of the 
people on
that road were innocent, however all were held up and assumed to be guilty.

Are they interested in the safety of those they swore to protect, or their own safety? 
An
understanding of economics may help with this answer. In the beginning of Von Mises
masterpiece, Human Action, he explains, "…the expectation that purposeful behavior has
the power to remove or at least alleviate the felt uneasiness." It is quite clear in 
both these
instances the officers have acted to remove the uneasiness they may feel in these
situations. In both cases uneasiness is alleviated by the gear they chose for the 
situations:
helmets, flak jackets, bulletproof vests, extra magazines, pistols, and rifles. 
Marines have
served in extreme combat zones with far less gear than these policemen have. They also
relieve some of the easiness by pointing their weapons, not just at criminals, but at
everyone. It is here where we see the doctrine of the preemptive strike. Although these
men do not shoot these people, they certainly intend to in order to preempt any actions
they fear may happen. Which leads us to question the courage of many that serve in law
enforcement today. If they fear uncertainty of future events, then maybe this isn’t 
the job
for them.

May they remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty under the laws of this 
land
and that pointing a weapon at someone is inciting that someone as guilty. May they also
remember that, the people are the masters of this government, not to be controlled by
those with unwarranted claims to power.



October 26, 2002

Casey Khan [send him mail] works as a risk analyst in Phoenix, AZ where he lives with 
his
wife.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com




Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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

Reply via email to