Free the Animal

"a conviction and killing machine"

That's exactly what it was.

And the people loved it; and cheered.

My Wonderful Sweet Land of Liberty

...Where self-sufficient entrepreneurs serving a market of mutually-voluntary trade now find it necessary to kill themselves rather take in all that American can be.

Well, I guess if you did the "crime," but can't do the time...right folks, you freedom-loving people, you?

Word

Karen De Coster contrasts the 'Andy Taylors' of yesterday with the Pigs of today.

...many years ago, a cop was a guy who strolled the neighborhood on his "beat," chatted up folks at the barber shop, and was thought of as a friend by many of the locals. Generally speaking, cops used to be guys who really did want to do some good for the community, and bring peace through a little neighborhood security. Good guys - for the most part - used to become cops. Confident, strong men used to become cops so they could hold a respected position in the community and provide leadership. Now, the bad, the bullies, the insecure, and the ugly become cops so that they can control, intimidate, militarize, and rule.

America: Love It or Leave It

SWAT raids of poker games. My heart swells with pride.

In the last couple of months, police have broken up games in Charleston, South Carolina (netting a poker playing cop and prosecutor in the process) and, no surprise here, in Dallas and Houston.

In the Houston case, prosecutors planned to file felony organized crime charges against the operators of a $300 buy-in tournament.

In the Charleston case, investigators went back more than a year to find names of players who may not have been playing on the night of the raid. They then went out and arrested them, too. They were eventually charged with misdemeanors.

Here’s a first-hand account of similar Charleston raid from a couple of years ago:

At the game in 2006, Chimento said there was a knock on the door and then “…all of a sudden it was like a commandos SWAT team raiding a bunch of crack dealers. It’s was like the SWAT team that you see on TV, busting into your home, guns drawn, ski masks on, full protective gear, and demanding we put out hands on top of our heads,” Chimento said. “At first we thought we were getting robbed, then we realized they had police written all over them, and we were like ‘Oh my God, check this out.’ Someone could have easily been killed that night.”

A 78-year-old grandmother was one of the players swept up that night. Police issued citations on the spot and seized about $6,000 in total from all of the players.

One of Balko's commenters issues a point of order.

“At first we thought we were getting robbed…

…Police issued citations on the spot and seized about $6,000 in total from all of the players.”

Guess what…

They were robbed.

Bonus: Just Brimming With American Freedom and Liberty

God, I love this country.

How could you not?

A Messsage of Freedom and Liberty

Wesley Snipes gets three years for "failing" to calculate what "The Land of the Free" demands of the time of his one and only life (money) and filing papers documenting it.

It's enough to get the "America: Love It or Leave It" crowds dancing in the streets.

(link: Balko, who has a few other links to spectacles of American freedom and liberty)

A Little Hasty?

In the interest of keeping my own self accountable and honest, I was compelled to revisit the Texas Polygamy case and my quick-draw post on the matter prior to taking in anything but the initial report.

Billy points to three posts by Wendy McElroy here, here, and here. It's the latter of those three he's referencing. I think she's dead on about the women from the perspective of 3rd party intervention. There's no plausible way they couldn't leave or explicitly call for help if they wanted.

Having read over what I posted, I still think my general point is valid, which is that rational men, unbound by "The People" fallacy, might have taken care of that mess long ago. Of course, they would have been totally accountable for whatever actions they took, and had they found it necessary to dispatch the rapists and those giving aid and comfort to the rapists (the adult wives), then they would have also been responsible for the well being of all the children as far into the future as it takes. Not saying that's what should have happened at all; just what if.

Ghastly? Perhaps, but the prospect strikes me as less arbitrary and less risky than the current situation. In the former, you have people sincerely acting upon conviction and principle to protect innocent people they have strong reason to believe are being abused against their will, and/or have been fraudulently denied a normal human will. In the latter, you have state and law enforcement authorities primarily out for headlines, camera face time whilst all dressed G.I. Joe, promotion files, commendations, and so on and so forth. Add to that, as Waco and Ruby Ridge proved: there's no real accountability for their actions when they become the predators.

I believe there are young girls there, lots of them, who though perhaps not being physically forced into sex with far older men (beyond the natural force that partly defines the act), are nonetheless indoctrinated into believing they have no choice. In my book, that's just a rape packaged in a fraud, both of which a rational libertarian ought to condemn. The reason these people put themselves and children into compounds is in part to grease the wheels of indoctrination, such that children literally have no concrete concepts of what is right and wrong stemming from their own perceptual integration. What does that mean? That means that if you, as a parent, shield your children from what the real stakes are in the real world so that they may grow to understand and act rationally within it, then you are neglecting your children. And if you then use their ignorance to take an advantage you otherwise would not be able to take, then you are being abusive.

So I find myself in an odd attitude about it. I loath the state. I loath those people. I think it's anyone's business to reasonably assure that defenseless kids aren't being sexually abused when there's a very bright suspicion they are.

Your Attention, Please

Kyle Bennett has up an extensive post dealing with prosecution without the state. Definitely worth a read, though it could be tough for the faint of heart.

A question you might ponder: what's likely to result in a greater number of injustices; a private justice system, where everybody is a prosecutor and 100% accountable for the propriety of all prosecutions, or a state, where every prosecutor is 0% accountable, short of outright fraud?

Lead Balloons

First up this morning, Billy points to "A Bill." I agree with him. Although, I must say that Barney Frank's statement goes just about as far as any "lawmaker" can go without just cutting to the essentials of the matter, which is that it's none of your business..."voter."

Certainly, the implied insanity of the current state of affairs is pretty well reasoned out, within the context of the reality that the State is all powerful and it really owns "your" life & the time of it, and not you. Even so, the title above speaks to just how this will likely go over.

(Near) Triumph For Zero Tolerance

Well, there's been a new development since when I saw this earlier, but as I often do, I read this whole post before clicking on the link it referenced.

Then, upon seeing the photo of the man, j'ai tout compris. Good thing they found the sand grain-sized pot bit on his shoe (0.003g / 0.0001oz). With that Jamaican look and dreads, he might have had to endure a lung biopsy for any possible non-metabolized bits.

Looks like some sense has prevailed, though that would only be after putting the man through the ordeal of an arrest, prosecution and the prospect of a four year jail sentence. So I'm sure that Mr. Brown is just "thrilled to death." Still makes us look like a bunch of pussies when it comes to "zero tolerance" though, dontcha think?

Organization and Efficiency

I guess California is just better organized and efficient than these cluster fuckers. More here.

Saw it first at Billy's, then Radley's.

"Polygamy"

Then there's this news, which I happened to just catch splattered all over the TV at the local mini mart moments ago.

First off, the legal sense of the word means nothing to me. I couldn't care less if 400 people of whatever gender get together in whatever combinations suit them and make like rabbits all goddammed day long, for all the world to see.

What's it to me?

Now that that's out of the way, let me just say this: in a rational world, that mess would have been dealt with long, long ago, and definitively so. ...By real men concerned more that women and children, who may be rationally presumed not to want to endure rape at the age of 13 or 15 by 50-yr-old men, and who are unable to cry out for help, would have welcomed it. Those who didn't would have been free to carry on. This is telling.

Dressed in home-sewn, ankle-length dresses with their hair pinned up in braids, some 133 women left the Yearning for Zion Ranch of their own volition along with the children.

Yea. Fucking perverted, impotent bastards. Afraid of real, independent women with minds of their own.

So why weren't these women and children rescued from this gang of rapists a long time ago? The system. A case had to be built. What's a few hundred more late night visits to the bedroom of a terrified girl when prosecutors have their win records and promotions to consider?

Remember this: "justice" in our "system" is not about protection of the individual or the victim. That's what they say, to keep you interested. But it's really about maintaining the integrity -- such as it is -- of the system itself. You are but a function; a cog. A statistic.

Later: I ought to add: this would have been dealt with forever ago if the name of the compound was akin to "Bob's Garage." Or even "Bank of Eldorado," rather than "Zion Ranch" of the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Get it?

What You're Up Against

Top North Port police officials said that their agency handled the case appropriately, and that they would not have done anything differently had the victim been one of their family members.

"As a professional looking at it, yes, I would be satisfied," said North Port Police Chief Terry Lewis, who was out of town when Lee was kidnapped. He returned two days later. "As a dad or as a husband or as a family member, when your daughter doesn't come home, you're never satisfied.

"I'm confident in the response."

...

He noted that officials captured the man who allegedly kidnapped, raped and murdered Lee. And they found Lee's body.

Do you get it?

Billy linked that, and adds:

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Or even hours. While you're being murdered.

Social Engineering

I was going to blog about this yesterday but just couldn't fit it in. No matter; Billy Beck has done what needed doing to the miserable prick Chris Benisch, principal of the Harris Park Elementary School in Westminster, Colorado.

For now, however, all he knows is that just being himself can land his ass in a sling: at his age, it's his job to integrate his senses and cognition (who here was never momentarily fascinated with the smell of a Magic Marker at his age?), and that is why he got stomped by this mindless punk commissar, Benisch.

Now, I don't know whether this sort of thing is all entirely new, or if it's more an effect of the Internet, being able to publicize far, wide, and instantly. I tend to suspect the latter, and if so, then at least there's that.

But if you've been paying attention over the past few years, here and elsewhere, have you been finally getting the sense that what you grew up to understand about justice, i.e., that it was about getting the bad guy, isn't the reality?

The reality is that it's either about the getting, for ego's sake, self promotion, attention, or whatever, with little regard to who'd being got, and why. Or, it's about social engineering and conditioning. Billy nails the point: "just being himself." This is what the social engineers have really been fighting all these decades. They're waging war against human nature.

They will loose, eventually, but the real question is how many get chewed up and to what extent in the meantime. As for that miserable fuckwad Benisch, I will hope that he never, ever gets let off the hook for this for the rest of his life.

The Wages of Sin

I guess this is what happens when you choose to don your leathers and mount your Harley, Indian, or other V-twin on an Easter Sunday morning rather than getting all clean cut and heading out to the local place of national imaginary friend worship to invoke the blessings of your magical spirits.

I just took these 10 photos in the space of just a few minutes over on Coleman avenue, less than a mile from my place. I headed out to breakfast (ironically enough, for ham & eggs) and on my way out, the San Jose Police were even more in force, and I saw more than one peaceful looking biker in handcuffs. I didn't think to grab my iPhone and begin snapping. But even after 45-minutes or so, there were still plenty. Looks like they were having some rally in a parking lot off on a side street. There were booths and such set up, so I guess it was something the city was aware of...just a sec...Ok, here you go. Here is your imminent danger to civil society, the Ancient Iron Motorcycle Club. Ooooh, scary. What's the world coming to, when evil can get hold of and restore old motorcycles and create websites?

Side note: my favorite bike of all time is the original Chief, by Indian (I just saw two pristine specimens). Until a couple of years ago, I owned one of the new ones and it was a pleasure.

These were all quick one-handed snaps while driving, but I've cropped them all to highlight the essentials. They're below the fold and I really have but one comment: why is this called for? Who were these people hurting, or going to hurt? Alright, one more comment. Do you have any sense that it might be a bit risky for me, living here in San Jose, snapping pictures of San Jose Police, posting them on my blog, and implying they're a bunch of pigs? Yea? Then my point is made. And indeed, it is risky.

An Exercise

Take a moment to begin reading through this. I say begin, because you really don't need to read the whole thing.

Brenda Harris/Ticketed driver “I absolutely positively stopped at that stop sign.”

Nicole Barksdale/Ticket driver: “I was angry, honestly, I was angry because I knew I stopped.”

Pam Smith/Ticketed Driver: “I’m positive I stopped. I am positive.”

...And so on and so on. Here's what sense I think you ought to begin to form, to understand, and to get used to: there's a presumption at work, and its unfounded.

Hint: you have absolutely no rational basis to assume that any cop will be honest. You count on it, just as you sorta count on all the other myriad people you come into contact with to behave with some reasonable, predictable, countable semblance of stock-human behavior. The difference is that those people don't come wrapped in the trappings of state authority.

They also don't get paid (with your money) to steal from you, and then lie about it.

(Link: Karen)

Spitzer

I'm sick of reading libertarian disclaimers, with respect to Elliot "Ness" Spitzer, that prostitution should not be illegal, nor should arranging your financial affairs in such a way as to cover your tracks. That's why I said nothing about it in my post.

The point is: it goes without saying. It also goes without saying that if a man raises vicious dogs that attack innocent people, destroy their property and fruits of their production, and wreak havoc on the lives of their families, that we should be tickled pink and overjoyed when the same dogs turn on their owner.

I am. I don't care what happens to Spitzer. The State could waterboard that fucker daily for the rest of his miserable life and I'd never lift a finger or brain cell to do anything about it.

"I would push for it in a case of injustice"

Note to the despicable Dale Franks: Here's how real men, who know and understand injustice when they see it, stand up to the state.

Later: While I haven't really the slightest clue of Obama's personal inner take on the drug war -- and I'm filled with foreboding about the whole upcoming mess -- if he does grab the presidency and does truly make serious headway in ending the evil war on drugs, I for one will be willing to overlook a whole lot of the other shit he's going to dump on America (which isn't going to be easy, but I'll give it a shot if he really demonstrates a commitment). It seems to me that the drug war would really be his big opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship.

Land of the Free Update

Good news for conservative, law & order Republicans:

New High in U.S. Prison Numbers

With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.

Got that? We've more people in jail than China, which has over four times our population (more than a billion more people than us). In terms of percentage in jail, China isn't even on the map, while we exceed but keep such illustrious company as Russia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Cuba.

America #1!

(Balko link)

Land of the Free Update

Here's a guy determined to get himself fined $2,500 and potentially subject himself to jail time in Illinois because he audaciously claims that his business belongs to him, and that smoking is allowed.

What nerve. Freedom comes with responsibilities, you know.

(Balko link)

The Scrofacracy: Public Enemy Number One

First, to preclude the emails.

Second, a little "Law & Order," complete with a pool of blood. The World's Most Important Blogger has the details.

Next up, something I was going to blog the other day when I first saw it, but didn't get to it. Here, the Scrofacracy, numbering seven "men" and "women," rape the female victim of an assault in a jail cell. They go about it real pro, latex gloves and all.

Here's Part II of that news report. I think this is actually the one I saw the other day, and it includes one of the male assailants gingerly slipping her panties off her ankles and feet. You draw your own conclusions about what was in it for them, later, in their own private space. I'm pretty sure I get it.

Now do you understand why I think "conservatives" and their incessant "thin blue line" Scrofacracy cheerleading can all go straight to hell?

Better Safe Than Sorry

...all the travel documents were in order.

That's right, and it was "the job" of the Borderbots to make sure. No life is as important as "the system," not even a baby's with a heart condition. All hail the system.

Stay calm, relax.

(Balko)

The Scrofacracy

Billy comes up with another video of that pig creep.

Never Ever Cooperate With Police. Always Lawyer Up

You're an absolute fool to ever willingly cooperate with police, even in the investigation of a crime you know you had no involvement in. Even if lawyering up invites heightened suspicion, I say it's worth the risk. And make sure it's a lawyer versed in criminal prosecutions.

DNA evidence frees a man who had done ten years in prison for a murder police say he committed when he was 15. They pursued him for 12 years, won a conviction, then kept in prison for a decade until the DNA evidence pointed to someone else. The evidence against him seems to be that (1) the victim was found in a park near his home, and (2) police found a series of violent drawings in his home. It looks like his mistake was cooperating with the police on the assumption that if he was innocent, he had nothing to worry about by answering their questions.

And another one.

Note that in this case, Scott was convicted largely because of a taped recording of him admitting to participating in the crime. False confessions are much more common than you might think. They happen for a variety of reasons (police brutality, the desire to end a marathon interrogation, the belief that evidence will surface proving innocence), but tend to occur most frequently with young people (Scott was 15 at the time) and suspects with a low IQ or mental handicap (Scott was learning disabled). In this case, Scott appears to have been tricked into confessing by an investigator. What’s unforgivable is that not only was there evidence exonerating Scott that was never introduced at trial, but the DNA evidence could have been tested years ago.

This is part of why I consider the police and the prosecutorial machine Public Enemy Number One, and that's not hyperbole, nor am I unserious. I think you have far more chance of getting unjustly wrapped up in the system at some point in your life than you ever have of being assaulted by a stranger.

Scrofacracy Update

Wherein Officer Salvatore Rivieri of the Baltimore Police Department finds himself with half a million views on YouTube. Now, of course, the only pertinent matter in all of this -- other than Rivieri's appalling behavior -- is that those kids weren't harming anyone and didn't appear as though they were posing an imminent threat of doing so.

He demanded, and then commanded, respect. What he was certainly able to do was intimidate, assault, and ultimately commit battery on one of the boys, then take his property; but he couldn't force that respect he believed himself entitled to, could he? And doesn't that respect continue to allude Officer Rivieri?

So, Officer Rivieri? How's that working out for you? You know what? Any real man should find it the easiest, most wholesome, and rewarding experience in the world to earn the respect of teenage boys like that. Sure, there are exceptions, but I know I could have done it. It could be as simple as asking them to explain the relative merits of their transportation equipment and what makes it so special to them. You might have asked them how they go about ensuring they don't run into and harm anyone. I'm betting they'd have been more than happy to demonstrate their competence.

This is pure pretense. Do you see it? The pretense goes to who's the good guy and who's the bad guy; to who's innocent and who's guilty. The pretense is in the constitution (i.e., in how it is constituted, made up, fundamentally constructed) of the state itself. By pure "virtue" of office holding, of uniform wearing, of badge wielding, of citing writing upon scraps of paper, the State is presumed right and innocent and the one coming in conflict with its constitution is presumed wrong and guilty. But the reverse is true, and it's true because those kids weren't hurting anyone. Rivieri is the bad guy.

And you know why? Because if those kids were actually hurting people, it would not have required office holders, uniforms, badges, or writings upon scraps of paper to stop them. The very best thing that can ever be said about the State, at its very best (which was certainly not the case here) is that in the context of protection, i.e., of stepping in to stop and prevent clear and present harm, it's entirely superfluous. That the best that can ever be said for it.

Update: Ok, some people didn't get the title.

Darren Mack Update

To be frank, I'd really rather not put this up. On the other hand, the nearly 800 visitors to this blog yesterday, mostly via Google and other searches for Darren Mack and Charla Mack, signals that maybe I ought to write something, then leave it at that -- forevermore.

Here was my June 14 post of 2006 about my cousin Darren, whom I knew quite well growing up. Once he was apprehended in Mexico a couple of weeks later I never followed anything much of the case. My mom did, and I got a sad update every now and then from her. She was and remains heartbroken for her own cousin, Darren's mom. I haven't seen Joan Mack since the events, but other family members tell me and it's just damn sad all around. It's "funny;" I just stopped and realized I never saw Joan with anything but a smile in my whole life. Even at times I may not have considered it the sincerest of smiles, she was always outwardly happy, jovial, welcoming. A very positive person.

Daren, having taken a plea deal once the prosecution rested its case at trial, then attempting to back out of it and losing that appeal, was sentenced yesterday to life for the murder, plus 40 years for the attempted murder on judge Chuck Weller, sentences to be served consecutively. In practical terms, he's eligible for parole after a minimum of 20 years on the murder, then 16 years on the attempt, so 36 years minimum time.

I really have no judgment to pass on the way that went down. He admitted to the crimes, and so that's that. Never mind legal technicalities, such as claims that he was pressured by his attorneys to take a deal he didn't fully understand. It's safe and reasonable to presume that nobody would cop to a murder and separate attempt in order to get locked up for at least 20 to 30 years. The State ran the deal, and it seems to me went out of its way to provide him the fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in matters of factual relevance. Clearly there were simply no facts available to even begin to excuse his acts, made apparent by even opting not to put on a defense at all.

Yes, it's still presumptuous that such a prosecution by the State is advanced under the pretense of "The People." It's preposterous because it's a slap in the face for all the victims, including Darren's own daughter and family.

But, as I said, he admitted to it, and even though the facts painted a pretty solid case just on the evidence, there's really no substitute for an admission. It's an interesting introspection, this, when it's someone you know and who's a family member. How can I describe it? I really don't know. Surreal numbness come to mind.

That's all.

So, When Do They Start Shooting?

The more I look around, the more I wonder. You see, the whole deeper problem with the State as an agent of force is that it conditions people to think only of force as a way to achieve their ends. And that ultimately works both ways when the State becomes intolerably intrusive.  It gets thrown off in the same manner in which is was installed: through brute force where people get killed.

Do you recall years and years ago when some "entrepreneurial" lawyers began suing tobacco companies on behalf of certain plaintiffs with lung cancer and other ailments reasonably linked to smoking? They sued over and over, only to have their cases dismissed or lost on motions for summary judgment. People thought it was the most ridiculous thing they ever heard, and yet now it's commonplace. In jest, people predicted that fast food would be next; and of course those lawsuits have already begun.

Hey, here's a ridiculous and crazy prediction: how about a law banning fat people from eating in restaurants and holding restaurant owners responsible to police it? Absurd? You sure? Karen assures us it's no joke (PDF).

I see something like that and I wonder what's going to be the spark that ignites widespread violence. I really do hope that people gravitate to solidarity in Civil Disobedience as the State intrudes further and further, rather than Civil War, but it seems less and less likely to me.

Actually, what seems the most likely of all is neither. I think people are finding cradle-to-grave government to their liking. More and more every day. Ron Paul proposed the smallest Cannibal Pot ever in modern politics, and it has gone over like a lead blimp. Freedom lovers are simply just going to have to buy their freedom. I don't think it will ever change.

Encounter With a Bot

I figure that the dogs and I are somewhere around 650 round trips of that strip of green to the left of the freeway running from lower right to upper left. It's about 3.5 miles from the loft up to the taxiway of the airport, and back, and we've been at it for 2 1/2 years.

They're on leash until we get to the park, then off leash for about the 30 minutes it takes to walk the length and back, then back on leash for the walk home. Of course, this is for their own protection as there are streets to cross and such.

The park has always had a "dogs must be on leash" sign, but most people, of which there's aren't many at 8am, just ignore it. The grounds keepers are usually out and about by 7, or even earlier in the summer. San Jose Police often drive through early in the morning as well. The grounds keepers always greet the dogs when they see them, and the police will often issue a nod or a wave. Nobody, except the occasional private busy body (whom I always promptly and explicitly tell to "fuck off and mind your own business") has ever said anything about the dogs being loose to run & roam.

So today a "Park Ranger" sporting a uniform and driving a green official truck goes out of her damn way to drive up to me, stop the truck, get out and tell me that "the dogs need to be on leash at all times." Do you understand the outrageous presumption in that word I emphasized? ...Not to mention the whole thing is simply an euphemism for: "I command you, and if you refuse, I will cause you harm." There wasn't another soul in the park anywhere in eyesight. I said not a word to her. I simply called the dogs, clipped them up, and walk down the road. Not a single word. Pathetically, she tried to make nice with the dogs as I was clipping them up.

I thought better of confronting her, or the violence implied by the command. You must understand: the penalty for uncompromising defiance is death. At some point, you will either submit, or you will loose you life. Even for walking a dog. You're welcome to protest that people don't get shot for such things, and they generally don't, but why don't they? Because they submit. They may make a fuss, they may protest, but they eventually always submit. And if you carry the logic forth, the reason they submit is that everyone understands, implicitly, that non-submission is going to escalate things. What I'm saying is that if you choose to be uncompromising about it, escalation goes right up to your death.

So what's the moral implication?

Well, who were the dogs hurting, and who were they going to hurt? Who was I hurting? There's the distinction, and you might bear this question in mind: ought there need to be a law or ordinance (euphemism for things written on scraps of paper) for that ranger, or anyone for that matter, to stop me or my dogs if we're in the process of doing harm to someone, or were clearly going to harm someone?

Do you get it? The law, you see, is superflous. If someone's being harmed, doesn't everyone already know what to do and to what extent?

Well, this probably happened because I've been walking later (8-9) the last few weeks and months, primarily because I've been sleeping so well with the fasting and exercise. I think I'll just go back to 7-8, early enough that I've never seen the Rangers out there. My objective is to walk the dogs and give them some time to run & roam. If I encounter the bot again, I think my approach will just be to cut to the chase and ask her straight up how early I have to be out of the park in order to avoid them. If she has an ounce of reason left in her bot brain, she just might go for such an arrangement, which will suit me fine.

Onmiscience...

Well, you better make sure you have it if you ever intend to use a gun against an intruder breaking into your house at night.

Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night. 

The suspect had no criminal record (at least in the state of Virginia). And he says in an interview from jail he had no idea the undercover cops breaking into his home were police. The suspect, 28-year-old Ryan David Frederick, also says a burglar had broken into his home earlier this week.

Thought the raid was apparently part of a drug investigation, police aren’t saying what if any drugs were found. They won’t even confirm that police had the correct address. But they have arrested Frederick and charged him with first-degree murder.

Also a good idea to "have nothing to hide" (uh..., so "you don't have to worry").

(Balko)

Update

Update II

Banned Again

In the continuing saga of "neolibertarian" political prisoner Steven Rhett, it looks like my unbanning at Q and O was short lived (see Franks' comments, there), and curiously, I only made one or two comments since reinstatement, neither of which were volatile in the slightest. And in fact, I backed off one of my strongest pronouncements -- copped to it, because I no longer thought it reflected my actual considered view of the thing. Honesty, in all things, to every extent possible. That's what this blog it about; and I endeavor to walk it, as well as talk about it.

So here's the comment I was trying to post on the newest of the entries, since Franks couldn't stand the heat and shut this one down.

Jon Henke, normally the most offensive of the "libertarian" lot over there, says:

I would have chosen differently. Whether I would have voted for jury nullification or simply explained beforehand that I could not vote to convict in the absence of harm or fraud, I do not know. Nevertheless, I would have done so because of personal moral ideals, not because I reject the very premise of government itself.

You know what, Jon? I could give a hoot about what you think of government. Love it, for all I care, and it is not and has never been my intention or purpose in any of this to convince you or anyone else otherwise.

What you would have done, for what ever reason, would simply have been the right thing to do. Period. Franks did the wrong thing, a deeply injurious wrong thing. Period.

Then he bragged about it. Then he and McQuain got together to wave hands and defend it -- as if a man's life is theirs to sacrifice for the sake of their notion of law & order, for "the system." You all do realize that's what's meant by the outrageous pretense of "objective justice" in the context of statutory law, especially criminal law, right? The lives of human being are daily fodder for the "practice" of law & order. And it's all for the sake of maintaining "a legal system." Mankind is a sacrificial animal to a rulebook.

McQuain should get no more of a pass on this than Franks. Listen to the podcast. Listen at how "stupid" you all are if you choose to do the right thing and condemn the wrong thing.

I don't know if the rebanning was unintentional (system hiccup), or if McQuain -- who appears to have initiated it according to Franks -- put his foot down. If the latter, then McQuain deserves even more scorn than I've already dished out. He's playing it all coy, isn't he? Mr. behind the scenes. What a pathetic coward.

Update: I hadn't see this yet, so this pretty much explains it:

And I certainly don't have to extend them to clueless cretins who repeatedly crap on my name.

Well it's certainly true that you don't. Moreover, you've known for many a year, going back to that Taxation is Theft thread ten years ago where we were allies, that I'm anything but "clueless." And neither are you, McQuain, which is the essential problem. You could be partially excused, if you were.

Crusaders

A public, solemn nod and salute to Billy Beck. I wasn't disappointed for a moment that he wasn't actively engaged. I knew he was watching; every godammed detail. And then. Follow Billy's links, or mine.

They ban me, and they get a half dozen in my place, all at least as capable, and some more so. Go see. And hats off to those who jumped in on my own say-so. You guys are terrific and I won't forget it.

Thanks again, Beck. You lined up all the implications and you, above all, know the importance of this. This isn't about winning a debate. That was 1995. This is about 10 years of a man's one and only life. What you'll see demonstrated, there, at those links, is the highest form of charity and goodwill you'll ever witness. It's in defense of Steven Rhett, a man none of us know, but he has a life.

Hey Bay Area

You can relax, now. The San Mateo SWAT team has raided a house, machine guns drawn and pointed, and prevented peaceful people their natural right to peaceful assembly and mutual association.

Another very fine day in the "Land of the Free." You go, "America the Beautiful." There's a lot more "God's Shedding Grace" where that came from. Be proud.

Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain: Liars and Cowards

[Update below]

Dale Franks, of QandO Blog, and his partner in crime, Bruce McQuain, have predictably banned me from posting comments on their site. Sure, I could easily get around it, but in fact I do respect their property rights -- though they don't deserve it; and after Franks' locking up a peaceful innocent man for 10 years, then bragging about it, then both of them defending it...they both would deserve anything that came to them.

The man Franks stole 10 years from, in enforcing a public policy he disagrees with while being perfectly within his legal rights to delay process by hanging the jury, or doing his moral duty to stand up for his own stated principles as well as his policy disagreement by trying to sway the jury: Mr. Steven Rhett. Instead, he "followed his orders" and "just did his job," and put a peaceful man away who wasn't hurting anybody. Ten years in federal penitentiary, a clear and direct violation of the man's natural right to his own life and property.

Understand: It had to come to that. I was going to push it all the way, i.e., until they faced the music and at least engaged those so outraged by their criminality; until they copped to the crime like men (note: this is a moral crime, not a legal one: the state legalizes and "legitimizes" all sorts of moral crimes -- slavery being the most famous -- and relies on Good Germans like Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain to carry the water); or until they banned me from further comment.

Well, given the nature of the crime -- and the braggadocio and belittling of the innocent man that ensued -- it wasn't difficult to predict what was going to come to pass. It's all here at the original entry in the comments, and here as well, in another entry. My original posting on the matter (with comments as well) is right here. Sunday evening's podcast, which opened on this topic, and wherein Bruce McQuain morally implicated and shamed himself to the maximum possible extent, is right here. Astute listeners will note that for one, this is a medium where they don't have to face direct challenge. For another, it's a lot of general hand waving and pretending that the outrage is merely a function of "usual suspects" and worthy of dismissal.

To those who might wonder: why the outrage? This stuff happens every day. Peaceful drug manufacturers, distributors, dealers and users get sent away every day. My answer is: where is the outrage? You expect the typical zombies who vote and sit on juries to do this sort of thing. You don't expect so-called libertarians, with a so-called libertarian blog, with a tagline that reads "Free Markets, Free People," who write and publish reasonably sound essays on natural rights to be directly and causatively instrumental in advancing state injustice of the most illegitimate form, bragging about it, belittling the innocent, defending their actions, hiding from righteous outrage, then banning them for calling them to task. Disgraceful. Shameful.

Cowards, of the worst sort. I wish them all the worst and all the bad that can possibly visit them. In a rational world, Franks would suffer shame that would haunt him for the rest of his life. Unfortunately for Steven Rhett, this is irrevocable. He'll serve out ten years of his one and only life for violating the arbitrary whim of the majority public lynch mob, enabled by Dale Franks; not for causing any actual harm to anyone. Millions of dollars worth of his property has been stolen, his life and the life of his family shredded.

As I see it, there's really only one option for Dale Franks. He needs to take his own life. Honorable men that committed irrevocable injustice, bringing irredeemable shame upon themselves and their families used to do that sort of thing. I mourn its passing from modern culture. Failing that, he could do something significant and long term to educate people about how they ought to avoid the same fate as himself, with any funds raised in such an endeavor donated to his victim and family.

That's how I see it. While this same suggested remedy could apply to anyone, it's unreasonable to expect it of them because of simple ignorance. Calling one's self a libertarian, publishing a blog, and so forth, implies responsibilities. They have failed miserably.

Update: Over the course of the day I've had time to consider my admonition that Dale Franks take his own life as the honorable thing to do. I think most people react on the raw unabashed radicalism, and not on the merit of the idea itself; but in any case, I've come to think it was too extreme a suggestion this early in the process. I think my error is a cart-before-horse kind of thing. For instance, if you opened the paper and found that a man had taken his life over causing irrevocable and real, substantial harm to someone, as Franks has caused Steven Rhett, then you would likely be totally at peace about it. Maybe you'd not have done the same thing, but most people "get it." Well, kook that I am, I simply think that if that's the case, there's no essential difference between that and suggesting that as a possible option for someone. The timeline doesn't change anything. But I think I'm quite a minority in thinking of it that openly, and that much I get. Anyway, if I was writing this post right now, I would leave that part out.

Update 2: Banned Again.

Outrage

I think what follows qualifies for the term.

I don't follow QandO Blog on a daily basis. I check in every so often. Last night I did just that, and came across this entry documenting the federal jury service of Dale Franks, one of the principal self-described libertarian writers of that blog. "Free Markets, Free People;" so they say. Well, let's see about that.

In short, "Mr. Rhett" got stopped at the San Ysidro border from Mexico into the U.S. while going about the affairs of his business: his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Without putting up any resistance, or doing harm to a soul, border agents discovered he was transporting a significant amount of an herb that "the public," according to Franks, has deemed "contraband." (It's always convenient to have euphemisms close at hand; it really greases the skids when it comes to lying to one's self, or others.) Here's Franks:

So, essentially, we sent Mr. Rhett to a ten-year stretch on the federal pokey.

It was really an interesting process—from my point of view, if not Mr. Rhett's. Especially the deliberations. We really did go through the exhibits carefully, in some cases finding information that hadn't been mentioned in the trial. We had quite a bit of argument, and really questioned one another's assumptions and conclusions. And we did it all civilly.

It was a good experience. My only regret is that we really couldn't honestly find enough reasonable doubt to acquit Mr. Rhett. We really doubted he was the mastermind behind all this. He was just the driver. But, he was the one that got caught, and when you assume the risk, well, you assume the risk.

Well, at least "[i]t was really an interesting process," and "...a good experience." There's that. In my book, Franks is just engaging in a round-about way of describing a hard on, and hey, it only cost a peaceful man minding his own business 10 years of the time of his one and only life. Never discount the value of a hard on.

So, here are my three comments to the post, in rather quick succession (with an edit of two for correction):

I never imagined it could be such risky business running drugs with "libertarians" in the house.

Oh, well; you have traffic. There’s that. From the looks, little of it libertarian. But I suspect you know they know, a long time ago.

Here’s to fancy "legal" arguments. Argue it up, Franks. A man is paying 10 years of his life for the sake of your technical arguing prowess (if not hard on). I’m impressed.

***

"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." — from The Law - Frédéric Bastiat

***

Franks:

"Well, I’m not an opponent of jury nullification, per se. I think I am, however, against its use to operate against a policy with which I personally disagree. I would push for it in a case of injustice, but, since I live in a country where the public ultimately sets policy, policy disagreements aren’t in my view, good enough to justify it."

First, nobody is or should imply that you had any obligation to put yourself at risk by scamming your way onto the jury so you could hang it. On the other hand, I would applaud such monkey-wrenching, considering that 10 years of an innocent man’s life is at stake — not to mention the disastrous long-term effect on any children he might have, wife, and other family. Did he employ people now out of a job? ...And other ["unimportant"] considerations like that.

You did, however, have a moral obligation to make your "policy" view clear to the judge and prosecutors, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they put you on the jury, then it’s an automatic not-guilty unless they can show that Mr. Rhett actually objectively harmed somebody.

What is clearly implied by the quote, however, is that policy set in some fashion by what you term "the public" can’t rise to the level of "injustice." So, presumably, it would have been "unjust" had, for instance, the prosecutors misapplied one of the charges against him, or, say, demanded a lesser or greater penalty than "the book" called for.

So you’ve just redeemed Jim Crow laws, institutionalized slavery...hell, even the Nuremberg Laws. All "public policy."

I guess the only way to achieve outrage, in your mind, is if the numbers on your slide rule don’t work out just right and that exalted "public policy" isn’t quite efficient enough for your tastes. Then again, there’s also the hard-on element, as noted above.

In a sane, rational, and just world, you wouldn’t be able to live down taking 10 years of a man’s life in your entire lifetime without just cause; and stepping into a voting booth to elect people to enact "legislation" to assuage "public" irrational fear of "them drugs" — exposing "public" foolishness in falling for any hysteria professional liars dream up next — doesn’t count. I hope the few true libertarians who still come around here never let you forget who is the innocent man, and who is the guilty man. Wanna guess which one is which, and why?

Utterly disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for the rest of your miserable life.

If you feel like chiming in, I'd suggest any comment you write would be better served over at that entry than here.

"Naval Clash?"

Well, communications wise, it was by the book. (Disclosure: I used to stand as Officer of the Deck, underway, in both the U.S. and French Navies.) For my side, I'm gratified to know that my classmates who now command U.S. Navy warships are still gentlemen, while remaining naval officers. The former is more important. Those boats didn't need to be "blown out of the water," as so many jingoists would have liked (thank god they're not calling the shots).

Being a gentleman implies the risk of being taken for a fool. Still, I think, it's generally worth the risk.

"Naval Clash?" Please. Everything went down like it should have. Here's what I thought of when I learned the news:

Best Of

Be sure and give Radley Balko's accounts of the best prosecutor and best cop a serious look. God knows I couldn't get within a city block of either of those institutions without turning in utter contempt for the whole deal, but it's good to know that there are a few who still understand and hold some semblance of decency, i.e., something rooted in moral principle.

Good News?

I wonder what is the visceral reaction to news like this, which links this, for most people.

For example, the American Federation of Police -- with well over 100,000 members -- recently praised Ron Paul for introducing a bill that would help cops obtain topnotch body armor that would withstand rounds fired from most firearms. Rep. Paul's bill -- HR 3304 -- would amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a tax credit to law enforcement officers who purchase their own body armor. -- Jim Kouri

On the one hand, everybody should get a "tax credit" for simply being dead or alive, so on that issue alone, fine. Bring on the tax credits, I guess.

But it seems to me that if you understand the full intent of the 2nd Amendment, it's that ordinary citizens have some reasonable degree of firepower parity with the state, i.e., to motivate the state to think twice. It is explicitly to introduce an element of bodily risk at an individual level to agents of state force. You can compromise that principle in two ways: either you restrict guns, or you render them ineffective against the technology of the state. So, the attack on the 2nd Amendment really comes from two directions.

And so we see that day after day in America, it's far too often that this overwhelming invincibility gets used against those least likely to defeat that invincibility.

I'm really not much of a gun nut. I like 'em, grew up around them, and have some proficiency with them. It's just not something I really get much pleasure out of. Whatever. But what I find really laughable is all the gun bloggers who're so pro law enforcement. They just eat this G.I. Joe-Cop shit up, and in the end it's compromising the 2nd Amendment they claim to support, in exactly the same way. But I never figured many of those guys to have the balls to really, really state what the 2nd Amendment is all about and only about.

Go ahead. Make the state invincible. It'll be used to crush someone: bad guys who are prepared to challenge that invincibility, or the unprepared, and their children & dogs, at 4 a.m., tucked away in their beds. Get out your slide rule and see if you can figure which is the more likely.

"Land of the Free" Sightings

Balko takes an extensive look at a few of the worst prosecutors in the country. And shame on any member of any jury in any of these cases who aided and abetted the prosecutors and the state in their criminal enterprise.

Yes, Finally

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but this is the very first time I've seen fully honesty injected into this situation, other than by me. Radley Balko, on To Catch a Predator.

I also think there’s an important distinction between men who arrange for with sex post-pubescent girls below the age of consent, and men who prey on young girls and boys who haven’t yet reached sexual maturity. The former is a natural, hard-wired attraction. I agree with laws that put the age of consent at somewhere b