The Police State

Anyone who knows me and/or have read the fiction I write knows that I am a strong advocate for those with no voice. Likewise, I’m a proponent of rights of those not given such “opportunity.” Last week, the world witnessed one such occasion that I just cannot let go without writing about: Christopher Dorner.

As an aside before I continue: I in no way condone violence as a means to an end when violence is avoidable. And I am in no way a conspiracy nut. I don’t believe in alien cover-ups or massive New World Order scenarios. Now that we’ve cleared that up…

Actions by police officers during the hunt for Christopher Dorner stepped over the legal line. This is nothing new and not limited to CA officers. Any time an officer is shot or killed in an incident, it appears that Marshal Law falls over the land. Vengeance is sought by police during the hunt. And no rules apply to protect ANYONE but the officers themselves.

The argument is usually that anyone willing to murder an officer of the law in cold blood is capable of any irrational act and must be stopped by any means necessary, even at the expense of that person’s rights or the rights of others in the vicinity. There are two fundamental flaws to this argument.

1. Police officers are protectors of the law and containers. Their role is to protect the public and are the armed force set with the job of bringing in “alleged” criminals for trial. Because of this capacity, they are inclined to come up against more violent humans more often than the average person. Their job is by nature and description is dangerous. If an officer is attacked or killed in pursuit, that does not change the roles of the other officers in pursuit. Their role is still protect and apprehend. There are other mechanisms for judge, jury, and executioner.

Allowing police this freedom when one of their own is killed during apprehension is abhorrent. Doing so is akin to allowing a soldier to call in a strike on an entire village of innocent civilians because one of them struck the soldier.

2. This line of reasoning that the perpetrator is insane and capable of anything if they are capable of killing an officer is dangerous. This argument is akin to the argument that foreign dictators cannot be permitted to gain access to nuclear weapons or nuclear technology because they are insane, irrational, and likely to use the nukes.

This belief in the opponent’s rationality only complicates the game and leads to irrational behavior on the part of the assumed rational first party. Forgetting for the time being the God Complex that comes with believing that you are the only one rational enough to hold and own (BUT NOT USE) a nuclear weapon and that everyone else is irrational and incapable of holding but not using the same nuke, one must consider that by assuming irrational behavior by your opponent, you will act irrationally.

You act irrationally but preemptively striking when no attack is imminent. You strike before a threat presents itself. In reality, you create a sort of self fulfilling prophecy by becoming the irrational player.

In the instance of the police officer and person who killed an officer, the officer assumes irrational behavior and pulls all the stops and preemptively attacks anything and everything in its path in hopes of stopping the insanity before it kills again. In turn, the officer becomes the irrational one.

During the Christopher Dorner pursuit, officers pulled over any and every pickup truck (whether it matched the description of the truck they were in search of). In some cases, they shot at the trucks or at other suspects before questioning.

Had officers taken a moment, they would have noticed many they shot at were not black or not even of the correct GENDER! All this in the pursuit of the “irrational aggressor.”

Of course this is not the first case of such actions and won’t be the last. Another prominent case was the Philadelphia MOVE bombing where officers had suspects surrounded in a house. Within the first 90 minutes, the police unleashed 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the house. Later, officers dropped C4 from a helicopter as in improvised BOMB. The rest went down in history.

Nobody wants to talk about Waco, TX without claiming conspiracy, so I’ll only speak of what the official comments were. In 1999, police stated they used “incendiary tear gas.” Incendiary by its name alone suggests fire. It was designed for outside use during riots. It is EXPECTED that it will start fires. The outcome, we all know.

The same happened to an innocent couples’ cabin in CA. Incendiary tear gas grenades were used…in a wooden cabin. The highly likely, though not guaranteed, outcome is FIRE. And, behold, fire happened. Setting aside momentarily the fact that Dorner was likely dead when the incendiary tear gas grenade was used, the cabin is gone, the option of bringing a man to justice is gone, and the lives of many truly innocent civilians are tortured because of the aggressive tactics by police. Tactics that were unnecessary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *