Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Killing Cops

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:11:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That question, even without an answer, makes most "law-abiding taxpayers" go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist "law enforcement." In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of "law enforcement," than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, "When should you shoot a cop?" Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of "law enforcement." And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE "cop-killers" around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

People don"t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN "country," their OWN "government," and their OWN "law enforcers," in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. "patriotism"), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting "law enforcement" is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can"t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about "working within the system""the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that "the system" will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should "illegally" resist"that if they want to achieve justice, they must become "criminals" and "terrorists," which is what anyone who resists "legal" injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so "illegally""i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

If politicians think that they have the right to impose any "law" they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it"s called "law," they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the "law-makers" or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as "law," then by definition it is up to the "law-breakers" to combat tyranny.

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist "war on drugs," the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of "security" (e.g., at airports, "border checkpoints" that aren"t even at the border, "sobriety checkpoints," and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it"s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn"t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don"t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it "legally" or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can"t resist a cop "just a little" and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:11:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET "law enforcers" have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it"s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to "break the law," and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of "government" agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: "We don"t have the right to invade your home without probable cause " but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try."

Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we"re at it? "You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us." (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. "Department of Justice.") "You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you." (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) "You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a "plea agreement"), you can"t do a thing about it." What good is a "right""what does the term "right" even mean"if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called "rights"? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do "A," it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing "A""even if he has a badge and a politician"s scribble ("law") on his side"you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That"s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL "government" agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be "law-abiding" don"t like to hear this, and don"t like to think about this, but what"s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice"even if the injustice is called "law""that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow "government" agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist "government" attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called "government" is usually very hazardous to one"s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer "never" to the question of "When should you shoot a cop?" The correct answer is: When evil is "legal," become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as "law," become a "law-breaker." When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed "in the line of duty," take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the "law enforcer" was the bad guy and the "cop killer" was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Remember that thread about who could be pegged as a terrorist? hah add this.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:14:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not strategically wise if your aim here is legal disobedience. But I suppose if you had to do so within a moments notice to protect your life or the lives of others, it would be appropriate by most standards.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it's the only way to stop them from killing you.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Violence is the perennial harbinger of any new order. Persuasion is almost always futile in such endeavors, and real change is much more likely to be born of blood and ashes than it is of dialogue and negotiation. When you see the people justifying the killing any sort of police force, you know that things are about to get very, very interesting. Not to mention dangerous.

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly."
- The Prince, Machiavelli -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

When you want all the other cops to kill you.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:26:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:19:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

When you want all the other cops to kill you.

He will call upon his fellow gang members. But honestly, when do you think it is morally permissible? Recall that the greatest acts of cruelty in human history have not occurred in spite of the law, but through the law at the hand of law enforcers.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:00:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:26:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:19:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

When you want all the other cops to kill you.

He will call upon his fellow gang members. But honestly, when do you think it is morally permissible? Recall that the greatest acts of cruelty in human history have not occurred in spite of the law, but through the law at the hand of law enforcers.

when your life depends on it. if a cop is going on a mass shooting spree you have every right to shoot the guy if you're life depends on it
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:23:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.

So, if a cop ignores your basic rights and asks you a question without Mirandizing you, it's not wrong to kill them?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:24:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

In any of the circumstances when you should kill anyone of any other profession.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:06:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Look at this scum of the earth cop, you never, ever point a gun at something you aren't willing to shoot. Yet for some reason, GI Joe here thinks he's clearing buildings in Iraq.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net...
Wonder what would happen if the events had played out in Indiana, with the castle doctrine, where citizens have the right to resist, with deadly force, the illegal entry of police into their homes.
http://www.youtube.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a fairly difficult question to answer. For instance, would a slave be immoral to escape his unjust servitude by killing a police officer trying to apprehend him? Is the police officer is merely a 'messenger' of injustice, or should he be responsible for any and all actions he takes?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:13:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is a fairly difficult question to answer. For instance, would a slave be immoral to escape his unjust servitude by killing a police officer trying to apprehend him? Is the police officer is merely a 'messenger' of injustice, or should he be responsible for any and all actions he takes?

fix'd
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:17:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:26:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:19:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

When you want all the other cops to kill you.

He will call upon his fellow gang members.

A dead cop will call on his fellow gang members? That's a good trick.

But honestly, when do you think it is morally permissible?

I don't think it is.

Recall that the greatest acts of cruelty in human history have not occurred in spite of the law, but through the law at the hand of law enforcers.

Nope, I don't recall that.

Meh
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:18:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:13:58 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Yawn.

Eitan bludgeons several cops to death every morning before breakfast without leaving his PJs. It just doesn't do it for him anymore. Yawners.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:24:06 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

In any of the circumstances when you should kill anyone of any other profession.

I've been logic'd.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:19:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ultimately, I think the question is unanswerable without the terms being explicitly defined. And even then, I don't think the correct answer will be predicated on logic that is satisfying to hear. It's merely a matter of degrees for this one.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can defend yourself if criminals illegally break into your house, you can't defend yourself if police illegally break into your house.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 9:51:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
You can defend yourself if criminals illegally break into your house, you can't defend yourself if police illegally break into your house.

That probably would be legal, actually :)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 12:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
When should you kill a cop?

When it strategically suites my end goals.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 7:42:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only situation I can imagine to justify killing anyone is when that person is in the process of killing someone else. It is quite a rare situation to be in, indeed.

I offer a frown to Kermit, who believes his ends can justify his means. :(
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:36:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:23:47 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.

So, if a cop ignores your basic rights and asks you a question without Mirandizing you, it's not wrong to kill them?

Most libertarians don't believe that is a basic right. I'm pretty sure Bossy is referring to an act of aggression.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:36:10 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:23:47 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.

So, if a cop ignores your basic rights and asks you a question without Mirandizing you, it's not wrong to kill them?

Most libertarians don't believe that is a basic right. I'm pretty sure Bossy is referring to an act of aggression.

Yeah, bro. Do you even liberty?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:02:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:01:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:36:10 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:23:47 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.

So, if a cop ignores your basic rights and asks you a question without Mirandizing you, it's not wrong to kill them?

Most libertarians don't believe that is a basic right. I'm pretty sure Bossy is referring to an act of aggression.

Yeah, bro. Do you even liberty?

I liberty so hard bro. I can voluntaryism 9001 liberties in one sitting.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:11:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:02:58 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/23/2013 10:01:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:36:10 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:23:47 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:08:38 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Killing a cop is certainly justifiable when they ignore your basic rights. It's not the best option (since you'll either die or be put in a cage), but it's not wrong.

So, if a cop ignores your basic rights and asks you a question without Mirandizing you, it's not wrong to kill them?

Most libertarians don't believe that is a basic right. I'm pretty sure Bossy is referring to an act of aggression.

Yeah, bro. Do you even liberty?

I liberty so hard bro. I can voluntaryism 9001 liberties in one sitting.

I c u, bro! Your post just made me Rothbard in my pants. Thanks a lot :(
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:58:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Only justifiable when you have not in any mean, break the law. If you are resisted the law by mean of violence, regardless of the nature of such law, it is wrong.