Replies

>>> Is the mere possession of a firearm or a toy that looks like a firearm justification?
>> Of course not. And I never suggested such a thing.
> There are folks here who hold that position. They also tend to say anyone not immediately obeying every command deserves to be shot.

>> ...do we all have to go around with our hands in the air these days to keep from being shot by the police? > Oh no! What we all have to do is, when they come knocking (IF they knock), is hit the floor, spread eagle, wait for them to break the door down, and pray that they don't take out their steroid-enhanced anger out on our necks and backs. And don't forget to say "Yes sir!" "No sir!"

> Also, why are so many public employees armed? Why is the USPS buying ammo? Why does the IRS have armed SWAT agents? They can’t use a better trained specialized police unit? Public employees have become too militarized.

Answered here:
Stop, Drop, and Cower
[Direct Link]

I'll go so far as to assert that the police simply do not care about Justice at all, if they did then they as-a-group would not hesitate to "out" one of their own that did commit crime — instead we see them covering up the crimes of their fellows. Instead of embracing the long-held classical English/American philosophy It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer (William Blackstone), thy embrace a philosophy of there are only perps and perps we haven't caught.

Indeed, much of the problem can be laid at the feet of the acceptance of the legitimacy of the War on Drugs; I'd go so far as to say anyone advocating the War on Drugs cannot be a Constitutionalist — because the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”
Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King
”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”
In other words: Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!

Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed. So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?

servo1969:
A very powerful interview I watched was of the McLennan county sheriff in Waco Texas in the aftermath of the Branch Davidians slaughter. The Sheriff knew the Davidians and offered to walk in to the compound and talk to David Koresh. The ATF and FBI refused and we all know the result. A good cop, the Sheriff, was over ruled by agents playing army and the whole lot of them were massacred.

The police are not your friends; you should never talk to the cops. (Even other cops agree.)