If Cops Want to Be Viewed as Heroes . . .

Print Friendly

Cops seem to have an almost frantic need to be regarded as “heroic” – yet they all-too-often act in ways that are downright cowardly.hero lead

A good example of this is a recent incident in Clover, SC (news story here). A wobbly old man was pulled over for a very minor traffic infraction (expired tags). He pulled over compliantly, without giving any reason to assume belligerence, much less a “threat.” Keep in mind that cops routinely run the plates of a vehicle prior to the actual stop – precisely in order to ascertain whether there is anything about the vehicle or its driver to warrant heightened alertness. In all probability, the cop in this case was well aware that the driver was 70-year-old Bobby Canipe.

Elderly white men are rarely a “threat” to an officer’s “safety.”

Well, Mr. Canipe made the nearly lethal error of getting out of his vehicle – something that used to be normal/routine (I myself recall doing this many times back in the ’80s) and which Canipe no doubt didn’t realize constitutes an actionable “threat” to “officer safety” these days. The old man then reached for his cane, which he needs in order to steady himself – and that was sufficient provocation for the cop to not merely unholster his gun but to fire it repeatedly and attempt a summary roadside execution of the elderly Mere Mundane.

Is this “heroic” conduct?

Shouldn’t a “hero” cop extend the benefit of the doubt to a frail old man? To just about anyone who isn’t obviously an immediate and genuinely dangerous threat to the cop’s physical safety?

Therein lies the proverbial rub.ax cop pic

It is now sufficient for a threat to be conceivable  – rather than actual – to incite an over-the-top violent response from a cop. Merely to argue with a cop (or turn one’s back and walk away) is often enough.

This parallels the “war on terror” – with its doctrines of pre-emption, overwhelming (read, disproportionate) response – and better safe than sorry. Actual dangers have been supplanted by imagined – and often enough, contrived – dangers. The particularly curious thing is the inverse relationship. Crime is down, but police aggressiveness is higher than it has ever been. Just as “our” government (speak for yourself!) sees a terrorist under every bed when in fact “terror” is practically a non-issue – at least insofar as the danger of being attacked by bearded Bedouins with AK-47s and C4 strapped to their bodies. You are far more likely to die as a result of accidentally falling down the stairs (or for that matter, being consumed by a Great White shark) than you are as a result of “terrorism.”

But the government terrorizes us on a daily and ever-increasing basis – all in the name of “fighting” this hirsute and ululating bogeyman.terra cartoon

Police work was plausibly heroic when cops put their lives at risk for the sake of others. To defend rather than aggress. But they do the opposite now. Their lives – their “safety” – is of inestimable value (to them, of course) whereas our lives are worth . . . well, nothing. Quite literally, the slightest perceived “threat” to a cop’s “safety” (not even his life) is – per the Bobby Canipe  incident, which is important precisely because it is not aberrant – sufficient (in the minds of cops) to kill one of us. The new attitude is captured best by the old saying: Shoot first, ask questions later.

Movie audiences used to chuckle – but they’re not laughing anymore.

If police want our respect – rather than our contempt – they ought to behave more like the heroes they purport to be. That means talking first – and shooting later. Ideally, never – unless shot at first. Burly young men – and burly young women – ought to resort to persuasion first, the strength of their bodies second, if need be  . . . and their guns as a very last resort, when faced with a mortal danger. Not a “might be” – but an actual one. A manifested threat – someone actually shooting at a cop. Not a 13-year-old-kid walking down the street holding a plastic gun. Not a wobbly old man exiting his vehicle with a walking can that “looked like” it might have been a gun.Heroes t shirt

Would this entail greater risk for cops? Certainly (although minimally; incidents of Mere Mundanes shooting at cops are a statistical and actual pittance compared with the routine shooting of Mere Mundanes by cops).

But isn’t that what being a “hero” is supposed to be all about? The putting of other people’s safety first? To risk life and limb, to willingly put oneself in harm’s way?

When that becomes characteristic of cop conduct, cops will once again deserve the honorific – as well as the honor – of being referred to as heroes.

Throw it in the Woods? 

PS: Please consider supporting EPautos. Google dumped us – so we rely on readers like you to keep the wheels turning. Our donate button is here. For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Share Button

  51 comments for “If Cops Want to Be Viewed as Heroes . . .

  1. Bevin
    March 14, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Dear Eric,

    Exactly!

    Fascinating how the same attitudes prevail in foreign military policy, and have the same consequences as domestic law enforcement policy.

    Just as US troops overseas treat every civilian as an “terrorist” and a threat to “national security,” so LEOs at home treat every civilian as a “cop killer” and threat to “officer safety.”

    Just as US troops overseas engaged in the “war on terror” conduct illegal searches for “weapons of mass destruction,” so domestic cops engaged in the “war on drugs” conduct illegal searches for “controlled substances.”

    Notice how what is done to foreigners abroad, winds up being done to Americans at home?

    “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
    – Thomas Paine
    US patriot & political philosopher (1737 – 1809)

  2. JoePA
    March 14, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Being both retired law enforcement and former Marine I was always embarrassed and amused when people thanked me for my service. I joined the Marines strictly out of love for my country and it paid near nothing but I didn’t care, I considered it a small bonus….party money. The police department (NYPD) on the other hand paid very well and had awesome benefits. The dangerous aspect of police work was near non-existent in my opinion. In my career I was shot at only twice discharging my weapon the same amount and assaulted only a handful of times. I was very active and on patrol my whole career but most officers sit at desks or in details that are completely removed from patrol, patrol is where the SHTF. Other officers go up in rank and as such are completely removed from patrol. As a supervisor it became near impossible to order my subordinates to do anything risky fearing repercussions from their union.

    A quick true story that happened to me many years ago. Me and my partner responded to a domestic dispute. Mommy called 911 because junior 17? was acting naughty. As soon as we arrived junior jumped up and ran into his bedroom screaming I’m getting my gun! His mother immediately told us he has a gun and better watch out. Me and my partner gave some distance from his bedroom door when it burst open with junior running out with one hand behind his back screaming “you’re getting it now”. I glanced over at my partners gun and the cylinder was rotating and about to discharge when the kid pulled his hand out laughing only holding a pack of cigarettes. The mother began to laugh and told us we knew he had no gun. I almost pistol whipped mom out of anger as we almost shot her kid for no reason. Me and my partner never uttered a word the rest of the night contemplating what just happened.

    When I hear officers who are far removed from patrol barking orders about patrol I cringe as I know they are a danger to everyone….. both officers and civilians alike.

    • Boothe
      March 14, 2014 at 12:44 pm

      JoePA – Mom should have been pistol whipped alright…for calling the police in the first place. What are these people thinking?

      • JoePA
        March 14, 2014 at 3:15 pm

        Boothe. You would be very surprised at the utter stupid reasons people call 911. You would also never believe the amount of your neighbors who are delusional, on medications etc.

        • Boothe
          March 15, 2014 at 9:46 am

          JoePA – Sadly, I do have a pretty good idea of just how many of my neighbors are delusional, dishonest, doped up (usually by the doctor) and in denial. When you try to show people like that the the truth and back it up with facts, they either shut down or try to shout you down. I have relatives and friends that were (and are) cops and some of the stories they told me…sheeesh! Let’s just say what I heard from them and other cops played a big part in convincing me that human intelligence has its limits, but human stupidity knows no boundaries.

  3. Boothe
    March 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Eric – I too remember when you could get out of your vehicle, confront the traffic cop and very often leave with only a warning. Not so nowadays. Worse yet if you assert your rights and you’re dealing with a cloverian psychopath cop, you may very well end up dead or permanently incapacitated. Land of the free? Innocent until proven guilty? Equal protection under the law? Yeah…right.

    It’s interesting that the steady decline in violent crime directly correlates to a steady increase in private firearms ownership here in Amerika. If we have less violent crime, the cops essentially won’t do squat about property crime and they are more concerned with militarized posturing on SWAT teams and revenue collection, this begs the question: What do we need them for? Or at least why do we need so many of them? C’mon, over 50,000 SWAT team raids a year? Back in the late 70′s and early 80′s SWAT was used for bank robberies, hostage situations and snipers.

    Now it’s kick in your door, shoot your pets and or you, rough up your family and trash your home supposedly to preserve “officer safety.” That’s low grade bovine hyperbole if you ask me. And when they realize they have the wrong people and the wrong house, do they issue a public apology? Do they prosecute or at least fire the wrecking crew and their superiors that orchestrate the cock-up? Not no, but hell no! All too often these officially sanctioned blood thirsty thugs get promoted. Witness Lon Horiuchi as a case in point.

    But it isn’t working very well now. More people are catching on to the iron fist that is always government and getting pissed. As I recall military posturing and attempting to round up the “assault weapons” was tried before. Back on April 19, 1775 the militarized police of that day thought they’d come on in to New England and put those “bitter clingers” and right wing extremists in their place. It didn’t work out too well for them. I expect before it’s over with we’ll see events play out here that will make the Kiev protests look like a meeting of the Campfire Girls.

    Whether they like it or not, if violence befalls them, it will be the fault of the individual rank and file police and soldiers who attempt to enforce the unjust diktats of the PTB. Grown men must understand that we do indeed reap what we sow. The things life brings you are the result of your own individual decisions and actions; violence begets violence. If you don’t want to die by the sword, you’d better not try to make your living with the sword. Stay tuned, we live in interesting times.

  4. Garysco
    March 14, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Self reenforcing manipulation since the programmed 9-11 kickoff Eric.

    Create fear in young police recruits. Indoctrinate their training while granting them wide officer safety “self defense” reaction powers. As they overreact the prols get pissed, pull out the Constitution and eventually retaliate. Now the cops feel justified and get even more fearful, embolden and abusive. And around it goes. All the while everyone involved never sees it is injected mind control from the insulated top of the pyramid policy makers. Both the cops and the prols are throwaways in the process.

    And make very sure the Matrix Press producers are on board and daily pound home the message. Make sure they broadcast all levels of the dangers the poor heroes live with while protecting the prols. Sell the fear and sell the tyrany. In California recently the radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, governor and many other far away officials had an over the top week long grief fest, crying jags, fund raisers, traffic snarling parade and church services over the “community loss”, “hero sacrifice in the line of duty” etc. etc. over two dead CHP officers. What was their line of duty community sacrifice? They died when the driver officer lost control and flipped the patrol car while driving recklessly at over 100 MPH responding to a reported accident further down the road. An unfortunate self-inflicted non-criminal solo collision.

  5. Sic
    March 14, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    But everyone is now programmed that THE TEA PARTY (white males mostly) are racist and EEEVVVVIIIILLLLLLLLLL!

    I’d Barney Fife was a bit premature with his weapon, but that big old black cane did look a bit suspicious….not murder you there by the side of the road suspicious….but I’d have been barking orders and getting cover until I knew what the scoop was.

    This makes us white old tea partiers even more jumpy around cops though!!

    • eric
      March 14, 2014 at 3:57 pm

      Hi Sic,

      One of the many things thats bothers me is the immediate escalation to a fusillade. The cop could tell he was dealing with an old – and frail- man. Not a young thug with tats in a wife beater. He also probably knew the truck was not stolen – and he certainly knew the old man was being compliant (he pulled over promptly, etc.)

      This is about poor judgment as much as over-reaction.

  6. David
    March 14, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Were cops ever really “heroes?”

    • eric
      March 15, 2014 at 6:55 am

      Some individuals surely have been. The ones who – for instance – put their own lives in jeopardy to prevent an innocent person from being killed.

      Unfortunately, this sort of thing is not what cops typically do. What they do typically do is enforce laws. Laws that amount to malum prohibitum – that is, not moral wrongs, but actions that have been declared “illegal” which involve no harm done to anyone, no victim. Technical fouls. Like seatbelt laws, or laws declaring the use/possession/sale of arbitrarily illegal “drugs” to be a “crime.”

      If cops restricted themselves to malum in se – that is, to actions that cause harm to innocent victims – murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. – I would have no issue with them.

      • JoePA
        March 15, 2014 at 5:55 pm

        and that Eric is my dream…..”malum in se”

  7. Doug
    March 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    Wait A Minute! If stopped, I am NOT supposed to get out of my car? Is this policy all over the US or only in some áreas? 12 years ago, a guy in Illinois told me, the Highwaymen want the driver of a stopped vehicle to get out and approach them.
    In two weeks, I’ll be driving in Nevada, Arizona and California. Anyone know what I am to do if stopped? I’ll be driving a car with Mexican plates and I don’t want to be pulled-over by some trigger-happy Revenuer. After all, EVERYONE knows: All Mexicans are drug dealers, coyotes or illegally in the States cleaning toilets.

    • BrentP
      March 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm

      If you get out of your car you are asking to be shot today. Tased at a minimum. If you are lucky the cop will scream at you to get back in the car.

      • Garysc
        March 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm

        Agreed. Stay in the car, shut off the engine, if nighttime turn on the dome light, keep both hands on the wheel and wait. Most important that he sees your empty hands and no weapons.

    • Bevin
      March 14, 2014 at 8:46 pm

      Dear Doug,

      Years ago I thought that too.

      I never understood why the LEOs would not want you to get out of your car. After all, when you do, you are completely exposed. They can easily see whether you are armed. And if push comes to shove, you are an easier target, lit up as you are in their headlights.

      But clearly that is not the way the LEOs think today.

      Apparently what’s going on in their minds, is that if you come near them, you might be able to hit them, stab them, or shoot them. Apparently these “heroes” are quaking in their boots. Their anger and violence reflects their underlying fear for their lives, for “officer safety.”

      • Garysco
        March 14, 2014 at 9:54 pm

        Bevin, it is because you have the tactical advantage of facing him for target aquision when pulling a gun from your backside pocket or belt.

        • Bevin
          March 14, 2014 at 10:05 pm

          Dear Gary,

          I suspect you’re right. That’s probably what’s on their tiny little minds.

          In any event, since they think in these terms, rightly or wrongly, if one wants to avoid getting gunned down, best to respond accordingly.

        • Bevin
          March 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm

          Dear Gary,

          Isn’t it interesting how this concern for “officer safety” coincides with the larger Safety Nazi concern for all kinds of safety, including product safety? Both quantify “safety” by considering only a single criterion.

          Isn’t it interesting that not a second thought is given to who must pay the price for infinite “officer safety” in their zero sum game “Safety First!” calculus?

          In the case of “officer safety” it is only the officer’s safety that has anything to do with safety. Nobody else warrants safety concerns. Only those with “official” status, i.e., “higher status.” Not “ordinary citizens.”

          I can just hear the LEO chiefs briefing the “troops,” telling them, in effect:

          “If you have any doubt in your mind whatsoever, go ahead and shoot the civilian. We’ll sort things out later. Remember, your safety comes first!”

          • Garysco
            March 14, 2014 at 10:40 pm

            @Bevin. This has accelerated after the 9-11 kickoff to tyrany, which was all planned in advance just waiting for an event. Everything since then has been an orchistrated form of enslavement while waiving the terrorist flag at the prols.

            Here is an example of a traffic stop where the bad guy had the tactical advatage. Fortunately for the the inexperienced cop (who screwed up from the start IMHO) the suspect was not as well trained as he thought. Had he been the cop would be dead in the first 10 seconds.

            http://youtu.be/ajO32vttB3s

          • Bevin
            March 14, 2014 at 10:56 pm

            Dear Gary,

            Yessiree.

            I used to be skeptical of conspiracy theories. I used to assume there was little actual deliberate coordination in smoke filled rooms. I used to assume it was merely congruent interests spontaneously resulting in the appearance of coordinated action.

            No longer. 9/11 changed all that. Learning belatedly about “Operation Northwoods” for example. Not to mention the Jeckyll Island confab during which the banksters turned the FRS and Treasury into a legalized counterfeiting ring.

            Remember how gubmint mouthpieces talked about how “We failed to connect the dots?”

            Well I’ve since connected the dots. You can be sure everything was set up prior to 9/11 to provide an overarching pretext for the introduction of the Amerikaner Polizeistaat.

            Conspiracy theories? They have nothing to do with anything. We’re talking conspiracy fact.

          • Bevin
            March 14, 2014 at 11:07 pm

            Dear Gary,

            This escalation in violence is going to end badly.

            Classic “Battle of Algiers” phenomenon.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

            The paratroopers are depicted as winning the battle by neutralizing the whole of the FLN leadership through either assassination or capture. However, the film ends with a coda depicting nationalist demonstrations and riots, suggesting that although France won the Battle of Algiers, it lost the Algerian War.

            2003 Pentagon screening

            During 2003, the film again made the news after the Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at The Pentagon offered a screening of the movie on August 27, regarding it as a useful illustration of the problems faced in Iraq.[27] A flyer for the screening read:

            “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.”[28]

            According to the Defense Department official (Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict) in charge of the screening, “Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations in Algeria, and was intended to prompt informative discussion of the challenges faced by the French.”[28]

            Clearly the USG PTB have forgotten this very lesson.

          • Garysco
            March 15, 2014 at 12:02 am

            @Bevin – While I don’t trust him too far, I think he is spot on in this interview.

            http://youtu.be/AhxZxL56B00

            So you don’t think Homeland Sececurity will win with all their new toys? I agree, but it won’t be pretty.

          • Bevin
            March 15, 2014 at 3:47 am

            Dear Gary,

            For all his faults, Reagan was level-headed enough to reject the Neo-Con chickenhawks’ agenda.

            The Reagan administration did include Neo-Cons, but that was probably a result of unavoidable quid pro quo “Big Tent” political deal-making.

            Paul Craig Roberts was far more representative of Reagan’s real foreign policy philosophy.

            The American Conservative writes:

            During the 2008 and 2012 primaries, Rep. Ron Paul cited Reagan’s decision to pull troops out of Lebanon as proof that calls for terminating foolish interventions quickly had a good conservative and Republican pedigree.

            According to McCain’s definition nearly three quarters of Americans are now isolationist. So was Ronald Reagan.

            National Rifle Association President David Keene has noted the major distinction between Reagan’s foreign policy and the neoconservatives’ vision:

            “Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”

            True to neocon form, McCain now chastises his own party for even daring to think about backing away from Libya or Afghanistan.

            This is not to say that Reagan was a non-interventionist. He wasn’t. But it is to say that Reagan’s foreign policy represented something far more cautious and restrained than the hyper-interventionism the neoconservatives demand.

          • lberns
            March 16, 2014 at 4:52 am

            Not a big fan of chasing conspiracy theories. It’s not that I don’t believe that the government would pull off a 9/11, it’s because there is so much real evidence about how evil the government is without having to go in that direction. It is like going a mile out of your way to get to the store that is right across the street.

            Off topic – I lost my profile pic and don’t seem to have the option to add it back any longer.

          • eric
            March 16, 2014 at 5:17 am

            Hi Iberns,

            911 revealed the outright psychopathy of power-wielders (the people who control the mechanisms of government).

            Something like the brutalization of Iraq – and the mass murder of at least 100,000 people – doesn’t register in the average dullard’s mind because hey, it’s just war – and wars are “ok” (even when they’re wrong).

            Like taxes aren’t really theft.

            But deliberately taking down skyscrapers? In this country? In order to set in motion a chain of events that would lead to an outright police state at home and a world empire abroad?

            That’s hard to cognitive dissonance into “oh, it’s just the way things are.”

            Dom’s working on the avatar thing…

        • Darien
          March 15, 2014 at 5:19 am

          I suspect part of it’s also psychological intimidation. They want you trapped and restrained in a box, not free to move around. If they make you stay in the car, you’re effectively already jailed.

          • eric
            March 15, 2014 at 5:48 am

            Exactly so. It’s about establishing control – and the nature of the relationship. You are not a free man, on equal footing with the cop. Your are Helot – and he is a Praetorian.

    • Helot
      March 14, 2014 at 9:50 pm

      Doug, always turn off the motor, and then keep both hands on the top half of the steering wheel.

      I’m guessing that if you’re driving a car with Mexican plates, you Will get pulled over, they’ll think up some reason, even for driving while Hispanic. Happens all the time. In some areas the odds increase, the higher the value of your vehicle, in other areas it doesn’t matter at all, the odds are the same.

      The guy in Illinois who told you the Highwaymen want the driver of a stopped vehicle to get out and approach them, that guy wanted you to get killed.

      YMMV. Jmho.

  8. Darien
    March 15, 2014 at 5:20 am

    It’s an awful situation, of course, but I can’t help a bit of perverse glee that it happened in a town called Clover, of all things.

    • eric
      March 15, 2014 at 5:47 am

      It is odd about the Clover thing, isn’t it?

  9. harris-west
    March 15, 2014 at 6:33 pm

    EP is correct on this stuff, but IMO he’s thoroughly covered all this before about our major cop-problem. Let’s move on to another similar government problem — Government Firemen (way too many overpaid, underworked, intrusive, and over-rated hose heroes.

    Sure there are many good & necessary firefighters around, especially in the volunteer ranks — but the whole government firefighting bureaucracy is a huge racket, soaking the taxpayers.

    This bureaucracy keeps growing despite a dramatic decrease in real fires over the past 60 years. Modern building design codes, materials, smoke-alarms, etc. … have sharply reduced the incidence of fires. Need for firemen has been reduced over 50% — yet we keep vast hordes of them on the payroll.
    Most government firemen are dispatched on calls with NO actual fire — often routine medical responses or non-life-threatening rescue calls. Many fire departments are morphing into glorified ambulance services, for lack of any real firefighting calls. Federal forest firefighting is another boondoggle.

    The public has higher regard for firemen than cops, but the truth of both is deliberately hidden.

    • Darien
      March 16, 2014 at 3:43 am

      I’m one of those with higher regard for firemen than cops, and this is because the usual work of the firemen doesn’t involve directly harassing, abusing, and killing innocent people.

      That said, of course, government firemen are as big a protectionist, exploitative scam as any other government agency, and I’m completely with you that they should be eradicated.

      • eric
        March 16, 2014 at 5:21 am

        Firemen are still close to legitimate work than law enforcers.

        Mostly, firemen still fight fires. They may be tax-feeding (in most cases) to do this, but they are at least fighting fires – a job that does need to be done.

        Law enforcers? They are peacekeepers only incidentally. For the most part, they disturb our peace – by imposing outrageous tyrannies on us.

        • Garysco
          March 16, 2014 at 6:10 am

          True enough – Not to reduce the real dangers they face 1% of the time, but they have become paramedic/ ALS-BLS ambulance companies more than firefighters. Fires have been dramatically reduced because of building codes like mandatory sprinklers, alarms and other structural materials.

          My experience with firefighters over the past 15-20 years is that they have gone greedy while claiming heroics. They don’t endanger themselves as they did in the 70′s & 80′s, and now use the most cautious and time consuming techniques getting setup and in their attack procedures instead. Many captains really don’t know how to attack fires all that efficiently or well, but have lots of book knowledge. I have also seen engineers who are barely able to balance their pump panel flows properly.

          As a group they love to pad the payroll by rolling 3 deep and 2 pieces of heavy equipment to a cat in a tree call. Because now they have union contracts that require more mandatory staffing 24/7 and response equipment to all calls, while using the public safety excuse. They regularly conspire with each other to get extra $700.00- $1,000+ overtime shifts in secret buddy trades with someone faking a sick day, then swap back later.

          Volunteers are a different story, and are usually short on training and equipment resources.

          • eric
            March 16, 2014 at 6:25 am

            Ditto all that – plus this:

            At my gym, I often see the Hose Heroes “working out.” Few of the guys look like they could carry me out of a burning building – and none of the women do.

            “Gender equality” has put women in places they ought not to be; or rather, it has allowed women to avoid meeting physical/performance standards by dint of vagina.

            If a woman can meet the standards – then I have no issue with her. But if she can’t pick up and carry at least 100 pounds of deadweight she’s got no business suiting up.

          • Garysco
            March 16, 2014 at 7:17 am

            @Eric – I can’t wait to meet my transgender rainbow flamer ambulance helper.

            OMG what am I thinking. Is there still room in Putin Land?

          • bonneville
            March 16, 2014 at 7:49 pm

            “As a group they love to pad the payroll by rolling 3 deep and 2 pieces of heavy equipment to a cat in a tree call.”

            +1

            Precisely right. I see this all the time in my community — multiple vehicles “responding” to a call where a single paramedic ambulance would be more than enough. It’s outrageous to see a large fully-manned fire-engine/pumper truck “accompanying” the paramedic van on a routine call for some geezer with chest pains — but I see it frequently.

            Firemen also seem fond of unnecessarily closing roads and highways at the scene of routine traffic accidents. It’s usually perfectly safe to keep traffic moving at some level, rather than shutting everything down in both directions for hours (even on divided highways and interstates). Routine fuel spills at accident sites are not national disasters; mandatory Hazmat teams are a cruel joke to blocked motorists awaiting Hazmat arrival and theatrics. Minor traffic accidents easily become major traffic jams, thanks to the imperial responders.

      • Helot
        March 16, 2014 at 10:45 pm

        Darien, your comment, “the usual work of the firemen doesn’t involve directly harassing, abusing, and killing innocent people. ” brought this to mind:

        It’s not harassing business owners when firemen do regular fire inspections upon a business? There’s the resulting fine or business closure for failing the inspection. The usual stuff.

        Firemen aren’t abusing business owners when they shut down venues or fine them if they have too many people at an event or in a building? I’m not certain if it’s the usual stuff, but it would be for every overly large event.

        When firemen show up somewhere, don’t they always/usually attract the cops? That’s bad enough in itself, but doesn’t their very presence contribute to the killing of innocent people at times? Maybe not directly, an accessory is any less to consider?
        Would they ever hesitate to call the cops if they found any little infraction while putting out a fire?

        Firemen are the cops little helper:

        From, The Viciousness of Armed Bureaucrats

        “The officer who led the unprovoked assault certainly wasn’t troubled by what he had just done.
        “After the ambulance left, a fireman used a fire hose to wash the blood off the sidewalk,””…

        Is that what usually happens when cops spill innocent blood?

        And, it might happen infrequently, but sometimes bored firemen start fires just so they can be called up to come put it out as part of their usual routine. Does that ever result directly in the death of innocents? No doubt though, it’s not the usual thing.

        Seems to me this applies to firemen:

        “The responses of the state [to emergencies and disasters] stand in stark contrast to those of individuals. [...] their principal purpose has been not to aid, comfort, and rescue the victims, but to establish their authority and control over them.” … – From, CXVIII – A Monopoly on Life

        • Darien
          March 17, 2014 at 1:26 am

          You’re right, of course. I was incorrectly separating “firemen” from “fire inspectors” in my mind. I’d still maintain that they’re less bad than police — they don’t tend to gun down elderly men for having the temerity to stand up, for example — but your point is well noted.

          • Helot
            March 17, 2014 at 3:32 am

            Darien wrote, “less bad than police”

            Ya. That”s true.

            However; I pretty much don’t do the ‘less bad’ thing.
            Bad, is bad.

            Anyway, I never see cops come to the grocery store to buy groceries while they are in uniform.

            Firemen and soldiers do it all the time.

            Firemen are the only ones who do it ‘on the clock’. When I see them do so, they walk through the crowds in the same manner cops walk through a crowded bar. I can’t put my finger on the similarity. But it’s there. And I find it so very wrong.

          • March 18, 2014 at 3:21 am

            I’ve worked in retail and in restaurants, and I can tell you that cops come in all the time in uniform and on the clock. I mean, *all* the time. I’ve worked in several places (none of them doughnut shops, even) in which it would be fair to say that our primary clientèle is on-duty cops.

          • Helot
            March 18, 2014 at 4:37 am

            Ya. I’ve seen them in those places too, Darien. But never at a grocery store buying groceries. Maybe it’s because they are always having someone else do the cooking (i.e. doughnut shops and bars) while picking up the tab?

            The image of a cop buying groceries in uniform must take away from their ability to project and influence, or something?

    • eric
      March 16, 2014 at 5:39 am

      Hose Heroes… now that’s got-damned genius!

  10. Tor Libertarian
    March 16, 2014 at 5:52 am

    Why not throw all the heroes in the woods?

    Just Municipal Maintenance Staff in nondescript Cintas overalls?

    No more slave catchers. No more slave terrorizers. No more slave inquisitors.

    Just guys who fill potholes. Show up to put out fires and remedy vandalisms. Put out orange cones and safety reflector tape around fallen drunks. Form perimeters around domestic disputes.

    Act like crime bouncers. They serve only to break things up and stop the escalation of small and petty into huge and felonious.

    Like janitors/nightwatchmen in public schools. Maybe more of them per capita is needed for adults.

    They have high tech superloud whistles and also silent alarms. These alarms also show up on nearby digital tvs, smart phones, internet connections, for citizens who consent.

    They are first responders but only with mops, duct tape, and wd40 and toolbelts. For serious business, interested residents will have to come join in and act as cyber posse at the ready.

    • eric
      March 16, 2014 at 6:30 am

      The fire thing is easy.

      It should be all-volunteer or on a paid subscription basis.

      Most people in a community – probably enough people, at any rate – would consider a community fire department to be desirable and would voluntarily provide funds (as well as volunteer themselves) to that end. It would be just sufficient to meet the need. No pay-padding and make-work. No force involved.

      If “free riders” become a problem, then make fire-fighting service conditional on having paid a subscription. If you haven’t paid for the service, you don’t get served. Exactly the same principle governing the operation of a restaurant or any other business.

      • Tor Minotaur
        March 16, 2014 at 7:35 am

        Hong Kong Fire Department Ambulance Motorcycle

        Paramedic ambulance motorbike of the Hong Kong Fire Department
        - – -

        If you volunteer in Singapore, you get a Red Scorpion 3 wheel bike.

        Couldn’t these services just be dispatched to whoever requests them, and then the property owner gets billed. Property owners signed up in advance and prepaying gets better rate.

        Singapore Civil Defence Force’s (SCDF) 3-wheeler Fast Response Paramedic Fire bike deployment from Central Fire Station.

        - – -
        The fastest ambulance is a motorcycle
        http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_beer_the_fastest_ambulance_a_motorcycle

        volunteer cycle emt – very cool

      • Bystander
        March 17, 2014 at 11:19 am

        Some rural areas have a volunteer fire department that folks can “subscribe” to for a reasonable annual fee. For some, this makes a lot of sense because the response time is much quicker than the county FD who is many miles away.

  11. Concrete Cowboy
    March 16, 2014 at 11:34 am

    They claim that getting out of your car is a threat to the officer and seen as an act of aggresion. That’s not altogether wrong. However, the real reason is that they don’t want you getting out of your car and locking the doors because at that point you have limited their constitutional area of search.

    • Bevin
      March 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      Dear CC,

      “… the real reason is that they don’t want you getting out of your car and locking the doors because at that point you have limited their constitutional area of search.”

      Now that sounds interesting!

  12. Tor Libertarian
    March 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    The end result they are seeking, is that system itself is seen as the hero.

    They are flexible on many of details. But they will not compromise on achieving Gendercide.

    They want to dispense with the old quaint notions of what having a Y chromosone means. And also remove any free women on the land who hold the status of what might be called Y chromosone equivalent.

    That means no more Wild West notions. Men are not to wield lethal force. No pistol packing Mamas. No putting up your dukes to settle things with honor. No striking another in any physical manner. Just drones that respond to systemic cues.

    Marxism, Communism, and Women
    http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Entry%20communism%20and%20marxism%20on%20gender%20v2.htm

    The foundations of Marx’s critique of bourgeois society provide a foundation for a socialist feminism.

    Bob, Clover, and Gil are all Socialist Feminists. To their minds, organizations are the alpha male. The organization is the alpha female. Individual men and women are drones. Individuals are betas, to be shaped and instructed by the alphas.

    Women’s equality, and other invented rights are a vehicle to pass the bulk of property and wealth into the hands of those who know what’s best. The nation itself is the alpha family. Your household relations are all beta.

    That’s why China has the one child policy set up the way it does. Mainland families are all modernized and power has passed to those who make the rules and wield authority. East asian and European men, though highly advanced, and in many ways superior to Americans, are nonetheless betas to their local systems.

    The fundamental social criticisms that Marx, Engels, Mussolini, and Lenin put forward, and weaponize—alienation, domination, inequality, and exploitation, are premised on assumptions about the nature of the human being, involving limited notions of freedom, self-expression, creativity, and sociality.

    Whatever one can say against the morality of this idea, it’s hard to argue that it hasn’t helped forge China into an overnight economic and organizational powerhouse.

    Gun grabs. Safety propaganda. Metrosexual ideas of subdued masculinity. Unnatural and destabilizing female emancipation and women’s equality are at the heart and center of the socialist agenda.

    Urreligion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urreligion

    J J Bachofen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Bachofen

    Bachofen’s theory of matriarchy, or Mutterrecht, was the result of an investigation into the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World.

    Bachofen demonstrated that motherhood is the source of human society, religion, morality, and decorum. He postulated an archaic “mother-right” within the context of a primeval Matriarchal religion or Urreligion.

    Bachofen’s 1861 Das Mutterrecht proposed four phases of cultural evolution which absorbed each other:
    1) A wild nomadic ‘tellurian’ phase, characterised by communistic and polyamorous conduct.
    2) A matriarchal phase based on agriculture, characterised by the emergence of mystery cults and law.
    3) A transitional phase when earlier traditions were masculinised as patriarchy began to emerge.
    4) The patriarchal phase, in which all trace of the Matriarchal and Transitional past was eradicated and modern civilization emerged.

    His theories were the basis of Friedrich Engels’ authoritative socialist literature: Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State

    Friedrich Engels adopted Bachofen’s views as follows:
    (1) Originally man lived in a state of sexual promiscuity.
    (2) Such promiscuity excludes any certainty of paternity, descent could therefore be reckoned only in the female line, according to mother-right, and this was originally the bloodline of consequence among all peoples of antiquity.
    (3) Since women, as mothers, were the only parents of the younger generation that were known with certainty, they held a position of high respect and honor that it became the foundation of a regular rule of women (Gynaecocracy). This is the real reason why in custody cases, the priority is maintenance of the women’s custodial rights.
    (4) This is what underlies animosity toward Jewish, Gypsy, and other systems where the male bloodline is paramount, or where there is no sexual hierarchy.

Leave a Reply

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