“All cops aren't bad!”
- All police officers take an oath to uphold all laws. - Some laws are cruel and or immoral. - Therefore every police officer takes an oath to uphold and enforce cruel and immoral laws. How are you a “good person” when you violate people's non-consent and self-ownership as a part of your job requirement? Can a person who voluntarily takes an oath to enforce immoral edicts truly be “good”? I'm sure that plenty of police officers go home to their families and play a loving fatherly role. I'm sure there are plenty of officers who are considered as virtuous by community consensus, but that doesn't mean that they are not violating peoples non-consent on a daily basis while getting paid for it. They can have all the best intentions in the world, it doesn't excuse immoral actions done under the auspice of statism. To do something to an innocent person, or their property, without their permission, or especially against their non-consent, is to act as an aggressor and is universally immoral. That's why assault, murder, and rape are universally immoral behaviors; they all violate the non-consent and or self-ownership of somebody. All police officer's are aggressors and act immorally. They all deprive you of your rights under the color of law. Police are required as a part of their job to violate innocent people's non-consent and self-ownership rights. They literally get paid to violate innocent people's non-consent. Your tax dollars are paying for the violation of you and your neighbor's non-consent. The state is stealing from you to pay for your oppression, whether you realize it or not, don't excuse, support, or encourage it.
No victim = No crime
- A victim is a person who has been affected by a crime. - A crime, is an action that either damages person or property, violates non-consent, or tricks somebody into consenting when they normally wouldn't have. - If there is no victim, or criminal intent, then there is no crime. Gambling is a victimless crime; drinking alcohol in public is a victimless crime, swearing is a victimless crime, public nudity is a victimless crime, prostitution is a victimless crime, doing drugs is a victimless crime; making and or selling drugs is a victimless crime, driving without a license is a victimless crime; not using your blinker is a victimless crime; not having car insurance is a victimless crime; not wearing your seatbelt is a victimless crime; driving too fast is a victimless crime, selling somebody raw milk is a victimless crime, resisting compulsory taxation (extortion) is a victimless crime; so on and so on; get it? Find and show me *one police officer of recent times who has never kidnapped, caged, extorted, or used force on somebody for breaking a “victimless crime” “law”. Using aggressive force on somebody because they are doing something that could potentially create a victim is to become the actual aggressor. Just because somebody *might crash their car into another car, because they're driving 20mph over the arbitrary speed limit, doesn't mean that it is morally justified to initiate force and or coerce that person. If no self-ownership rights were violated, then there was no crime.
Innocent until proven guilty
Once upon a time there was the philosophy that a person was viewed as innocent until they were proven guilty of creating a victim and or committing an actual crime. Now a days, people are being kidnapped and caged for being intoxicated on their own front lawns. People are being kidnapped and caged for refusing to sign pieces of paper, for smoking certain plants, for driving without a government issued identification card, for feeding the homeless. People are not presumed innocent until proven guilty anymore, and police are now filling the roles of investigators by trying to incriminate every individual that they encounter. Just the act alone of a police officer running your plates through a computer goes against presuming you as innocent. When a cop profiles you and pulls you over based on the hearsay of a machine that tells him that you are driving without a registration, that is not being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Once they have you pulled over, the first thing that they do is try to get you to incriminate yourself by asking a series of prying questions; like, “Where are you coming from?”, “Where are you heading?”, and, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”. While they're doing that they are staring into your car windows in order to try to see if you have anything that might breach one of their arbitrary edicts, after all, you might have a dangerous piece of plant inside of your car! You are presumed so innocent that everything you say is considered a lie! If an officer asks you if there is anything in your car, and you say no, and then they request to search your car, and you refuse, then they often call in K9 units. If one of their dogs makes a body movement that indicates that it caught the scent of a specific terpene called “caryophyllene “, then your innocence goes out the window and they will forcefully search your vehicle. K9s are not capable of smelling THC or the other cannabinoids, they are taught to identify the presence of certain terpenes, which are present in a copious amount of plants. Caryophyllene is used because it is almost always present in the flowers of Cannabis, except that it is also present numerous other plants at the same levels; like clove, hops, basil, oregano, pepper, lavender, rosemary, cinnamon, etc. So if one of their special dogs is said by an officer to make a certain body movement or vocalization that indicates that it smells the presence of an odor that is present in dozens of legal plants, then you will be treated as a criminal and subjected to coercion. That's not innocent until proven guilty.
Conflict of interest.
Police work for the same people who demand that you are stolen from in the form of compulsory taxation to fund their paychecks. How is it not a conflict of interest when your court trial is funded by the same people who steal from you to fund the group of people who arrested you? The money that is stolen from you in the form of compulsory taxation, is used to fund your own prosecution, in addition to funding the cops who violate your non-consent based on the arbitrary mandates coming from the people who are in charge of the stealing. Your taxes are paying for the actions of the police officers who are enforcing unjust and immoral laws, while also funding all of the investigations by internal affairs when there's reported misconduct. Your tax money pays for: - Paychecks for police who violate your rights. - Paychecks for district attorney's with prosecutorial discretion - Paychecks for judges who deem you innocent or guilty. - Internal affair investigations for police misconduct. - Police officer's court expenses (whether guilty or not.) - Your own prosecution. - Your own imprisonment. The state steals money from you to pay people who work for their monopoly on security, and then when one of their people are accused of unjustly killing somebody, say, your brother, they then get more of the money that was stolen from you to fund the investigation, while even more of it is used to give the officer paid leave. So when an officer kills your brother, you have paid for the officer's actions, their paid administrative leave, and for the internal investigation. They all work for the same group of people who coerce you to pay them in the form of submitting to compulsory taxation. Police, judges, public defendants, and district attorney's all get paid by the same people who make up the rules and lay compulsory taxes on everybody; and that's not a conflict of interest?!? You're getting stolen from by people who pay people to deprive you of your rights under the color of law, and that pay the people who find you guilty and instruct for you to be caged. You are literally being coerced to fund your own oppression; but that isn't a conflict of interest, it's, “freedom”.
Can you delegate a right to somebody that you do not have? Officer's have been given legal immunities to consequences, and privileges to perform certain actions which would otherwise be considered criminal. Except, where did these rights come from? How does somebody acquire a positive right that nobody else had before them? According to the U.S. Constitution, rights are derived from the people, not from god, and not the government. A right must first be possessed in order for it to be delegated. If the right to intervene in consensual exchanges with the use of aggressive force wasn't possessed by anybody before the police, then how did it get delegated to the them? Who had the positive right to use aggressive force on innocent people before the cops did? - Every individual has the inherent right to defend themselves from aggression. - When *you pull somebody over to reprimand them for an arbitrary reason, you are viewed as an aggressor. - When the *police pull people over for not wearing a safety harness, that is aggression, but they get paid for it and it's a requirement of their job. - When you kidnap an innocent person for not signing a piece of paper, you are viewed as an aggressor, and risk being caged. - When the police kidnap an innocent person for not signing a piece of paper, that is aggression, but they are said to be, “just following protocol”. - When an innocent individual tries to defend themselves from an officer's transgressions, then it is viewed as “resisting arrest” and is considered criminal. - When an officer perceives your self-defense to their transgressions as resisting arrest, they are taught to escalate their use of force in an attempt to kidnap and cage you. - When you continue to defend yourself from their transgressions, you will likely be kidnapped and caged, if they don't kill you first. - When* you kill somebody who has created no victims for defending themselves from being kidnapped and or caged, then you will be charged with murder, and likely subjected to caging. - When an officer kills somebody for defending themselves from being kidnapped and or caged over breaking an arbitrary law that resulted in no victims, that is aggression, but they will likely get a paid vacation, if anything at all. Can you get away with raiding your neighbors house with guns drawn for suspecting them of possessing certain plants and or chemicals? What would happen if you did that? Can you get away with handcuffing, kidnapping, or caging people for being under the influence of certain chemicals? What would happen if you did that? Can you get away with pulling people over when you think that they are driving too fast and telling them that they owe you money now? How would those people respond? Can you get away with using force on people for refusing to sign pieces of paper? How do you think that would pan out? Can you get away with searching somebody's car because you think it smells a certain way? Or would the person call you crazy and tell you to get lost? Can you get away with forcefully searching somebody for fitting the description of hearsay? Or would you be viewed as an aggressor and be subjected to defensive force? Can you get away with searching, assaulting, kidnapping, or caging innocent people based on hearsay? Or would that make you a criminal? What happens if you kill somebody, “by accident”? Can you get away with that? Can you shoot somebody and get away with it just because you *think that they have a gun and may use it? Police can. Does that seem fair, or just? That's blue privilege! Cops don't even need to show up for court anymore in most states. Judges will just keep continuing the case until they finally show up. What happens when you choose to not show up to a court case? They have been given legal immunities to the expected consequences for using aggression on innocent people as a means to an end, among other things. Blue-coats have the legal privilege to violate your non-consent and self-ownership. Take check-points for example, can you set up a check point and expect every car to stop for it to make sure that everything is up to your standards, including police? No? Why not? No fancy costume? No blue coat? Didn't take the right oath to the right group of people? Police need to be held accountable for their actions at the same level that a private citizen is, or even higher. If a private individual is not allowed to do something, then an officer should not be allowed to do it “under the color of law”.
”Governments” don't even exist
A citizen pledges their allegiance in exchange for promised protection, but the supreme court ruled that police are not obligated to protect anybody, only enforce “laws”. So they aren't required to protect anybody, but everybody is expected to pledge an allegiance to them, and to submit to their authority and extortion. Something seems fishy when the people who steal from you are the same people who you pledge allegiance to in exchange for protection. It gets even smellier when those same people turn around and say that they owe you no protection. If no protection is owed, then the allegiance is null. If the allegiance is what makes a citizen a citizen, and the allegiance has been nullified, then there are no citizens. If there are no citizens, then what is government and or police other than a bunch of people in costumes commanding you to obey arbitrary demands?
You're being violated
Since governments don't even exist in actuality, it only makes sense that you are constantly being violated by imperious men and women dressed up in costumes. “Police officers” get a free pass to initiate violence on innocent people. They are literally working for a monopoly on legalized aggression, and are granted legal exemption to the consequences of using force on innocent people against their non-consent as a means to an end. Cops use to be called peace officers, but are now, more appropriately being called police officers; after all, they are just enforcers, or “officers”, of arbitrary policies. You are now over 60x more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. As soon as a police officer turns on their flashing blue lights to pull you over, it means that you are expected to pull over and to comply. If you don't pull over for the officer, then they are taught to escalate force, regardless of what the “offense” is. If you break an arbitrary edict, such as driving too fast, and then you refuse to pull over for a police officer, you face being run off the road, or being taken out by road spikes. If you got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, a law allegedly created for *your protection, and you refuse to sign the citation that the officer has written, then they are taught to use escalate their use of coercion. An officer will use aggressive force on you if you refuse to sign a piece of paper, but, “they're not all bad”. People are getting kidnapped, extorted, and or caged for minor things that create no victims, like collecting rain water, growing food gardens, growing certain non-invasive plants, driving without a license, driving faster than a sign says, jay-walking, putting certain things in their own bodies, possessing certain objects, selling certain objects, and feeding the homeless. None of those things create any victims, and yet force is used under the color of law on people who perform those actions. In what kind of world do we live in where people think that you're a bad person for pointing out that it is immoral to use force on people who have not created any victims. The Twilight Zone? The blind loyalty of the masses towards the men in blue is disturbing. People have compartmentalized their actions due to stockholm syndrome, and generally cheer for their own oppression!