It is the job of the police to abuse your rights.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-police-20160826-snap-story.html
Category Archives: Abolish The Police
You Have To Watch This. Hilarious Ending.
Another Idea for How to Get Out of a Traffic Ticket
I’ve discussed this argument in the past as a presuppositional refutation of American government (at least the American government of the last 50-100 years which has declared Jesus Christ to be unconstitutional). But I’m going to discuss how it would be applied to get out of a traffic ticket. This argument has been successful in getting people out of tickets, and I’ve stolen it lock, stock and barrel from Marc Stevens. You should check out his website and Youtube channel.
For my recent ticket I was planning on using yesterday’s argument, and if that was not successful, I was going to use this argument. The argument is that the cop who wrote the ticket and the law he cited you under don’t have jurisdiction over you, or at least that they have to prove jurisdiction to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re guilty of a crime.
It is a pretty simple argument, and here’s how it might go:
You ask the cop for evidence or facts to show that the law applies to you.
The only thing he can really say is that the law applies because the law says it applies. You would then point out that that is an invalid answer, because it is circular reasoning. And then you would repeat the question. When he isn’t able to answer, you would move that the case be dismissed for lack of evidence of jurisdiction.
To further explain the issue, I would give an example. You could take a notebook and write “Sam’s Law for the state of Colorado” across the front. Then you write in (in very nice handwriting), “Law 1-1a: This law applies to everyone in Colorado.”
Why doesn’t Sam’s law apply to you (assuming you’re within the boundaries of the state of Colorado)? An enforcement agent of Sam’s law would say, “Look at Law 1-1a. It clearly says it applies to you.” But Sam’s law can’t apply because Sam’s law says it applies. That would be circular reasoning. In reality, Sam’s law is every bit as valid as the laws of the state of Colorado. It’s just that Sam’s law doesn’t have thousands of armed enforcers willing to kill you.
If you check out Marc Steven’s website, linked above, you will see that this technique has worked to get people out of tickets and other legal attacks.
Ideas For Getting Out of a Traffic Ticket
I’ve been to court to evict tenants in the past. While waiting for my case to come up, I’ve seen two different traffic tickets coming up for trial. On both cases, the defendant won. The system says you’re innocent until proven guilty. If you put forth a plausible argument, you’ll be found not guilty (in my experience).
This bears out because they try at every opportunity to get you to pay up and go away. They offer to deduct fewer points if you pay quickly. They offer a plea bargain if you show up to plead not guilty. They want to get you to pay up and go away so they don’t need to pay a judge and a cop to conduct a trial. They count on the fact that you don’t want to take time off of work, and you only get a few traffic tickets in your life, so you don’t know what you’re doing and you’re intimidated by the process so you just do anything to get out of it.
Here’s how the two people I saw win their trial won. I can’t remember exactly what the charge was in the first trial, but the guy’s defense was that the bush was blocking the stop sign. So the judge found him not guilty.
The other trial I saw, the guy had a lawyer. The state patrolman presented his case, and the lawyer said, “Does the state rest its case?”
The judge asked the state patrolman to answer the question, and he said that he had rested his case.
The lawyer then said, “I would ask that the case be dismissed, because the state never identified my client as the accused.”
The judge said, “Your client came up when I called the case.” The lawyer kind of just shrugged, and didn’t really say anything. The judge was silent for 30 seconds or so, and said the case is dismissed.
I would always attempt that defense. If the judge doesn’t go for it, you move on with whatever else you had. I think as long as you can offer any plausible argument, you will be let off.
That being said, some people hope for the cop not showing up. I guess there is always that possibility, but the cop has always shown up in my experience. Actually, I remember a third trial where a guy got a ticket for not wearing his seat belt. He didn’t show up, but the cop did show up. He was found automatically guilty and got a $50 fine.
It would be my guess that their policy is that the cop always shows up to avoid getting the reputation that if you fight the ticket you might get off easily.
I think at this point, our goal as patriots and secessionists would be to make it as difficult for government as possible–make our compliance as costly as possible. Only comply at the last moment right before the cop shoots you or they’re going to cost you more than you get out of it. Fighting a traffic ticket is one way to fight them.
I have one more method to try at a trial, that I know has been successful, though I haven’t personally witnessed it. I’ll discuss that tomorrow.
What To Do With a Traffic Ticket
I recently got a speeding ticket from the Colorado state patrol. First of all, the cop says that if you pay the full amount of the ticket within 20 days, they will deduct fewer points.
I tried to look up how many points I might have, and I could find very little information. I couldn’t even really find general information about how many points I might have, much less my specific situation. So who cares about how many points are on my driver’s license?
I’ve only had a few tickets and I’ve always just paid them. I decided to fight this one and see what happened. I looked up the laws and the laws for minor traffic infractions are pretty simple. I read the whole thing, and they have simplified things down to laymen’s terms, and the whole process operates for laymen. Here are the laws for Colorado. It starts in Rule 1 and goes through Rule 18. You can’t play Monopoly without knowing the rules. How could you fight a traffic ticket without knowing the rules?
The first step is a hearing where you plead guilty or not guilty. The cop will not show up for this. I thought I’d be appearing in front of a judge, but it was just a clerk in the clerk’s office. But just for showing up, they offered everyone a plea bargain. My $170 fine and 4 point ticket was reduced to $72 and 2 points. I wussed out and took it. It was hard to pass that offer up.
But, reading the rules made sense out of some of my experiences in seeing how things work. I’ll write a couple of articles on ideas for how to get out of a ticket completely and how to gum up the works.
More Hypocrisy
Yesterday, I posted about how this guy was defending bad cops and federal grants. Today, you’ll see blatant hypocrisy.
He posted this on Facebook:
Unfortunately, the suspicious attitude toward law enforcement that has been actively promoted in this country is leading toward very foolish behavior. This individual simply walks up to a patrol car at night, flashes a light in the officer’s eyes, and demands his name and badge number. There appears to be no reason for his behavior, on the video, other the he feels entitled to have that information.
The officer does not know this person He does not know his intent, only thatthe person is being confrontational and demanding the officer’s info. The officer takes precaution to protect himself and even attempts to drive his patrol car away from the person to give himself distance and time, which gives him better options to address the matter. However, this person continues to follow, shining his light and being confrontational.
Had this scenario ended with the person injured, you can be assured the media would have painted this officer poorly and screamed abuse of power. This is the result of a nation which feels entitled to question any and all police actions, and assume the guilt of an officer before evidence is even examined. We now have people who spend their time looking for officer involved incidents so they can record them and “prove” police abuse of power. This individual placed himself in a position of risk by confronting an officer at night just to get his reaction on film.
This is why I keep asking those of you who follow me to think before you speak. Know the evidence, know whereof you speak. If you don’t, you encourage blatant mistrust of police which result in this kind of behavior.
Am I against public scrutiny? Not at all, I welcome proper examination of what we do. We must be held accountable. But this kind of mistrust is breeding more and more contempt for police which inevitably end badly.
I think it’s ridiculous for someone to shine a flashlight in someone’s eyes. We all learn that when we’re children. But if it’s wrong for citizens, it’s wrong for police.
Normal police procedure involves them going around shining flashlights in people’s eyes. Watch a few cop videos, and they routinely shine flashlights at video cameras to mess up the camera’s focus. But my bad-cop-loving friend here thinks it’s a bad idea to do that to a cop.
I agree that it’s bad to do that to a cop, especially within the last week or two when they think every moment could be their last, and it us versus them. If you shine a flashlight in a cop’s eyes, as unthinkable and criminal as it would be for citizens, they’re likely to pull their gun on you. Never mind that the first thing you learn about gun safety is that you only point your gun at what you’re willing to shoot. Cops are exempt from gun safety rules. And just like taking candy from a baby, this cop predictably, and dangerously and double standardously pulls his gun on this guy.
You can see in the reflection on the car that the citizen probably has the flash on his camera on, but who’s shining their flashlight at who? My bad-cop-defending friend is smoking some serious statism and ignoring Scripture. The Bible says at least 10 times that God is no respecter of persons. Police should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
Is This Just a Knee Jerk Reaction, Or Are They This Stupid?
You wouldn’t think that cops would blatantly defend bad cops, or be against the idea that black people should receive impartial justice. I hope that’s not what this is.
My acquaintance on Facebook is a cop, and he posted a link to this spammy, clickbait, article. (I posted a comment on that article, but it was deleted, which is really lame.) I don’t know whether he actually read the article or not. I don’t know whether the commenters read it or not. Maybe they see a Hollywood liberal post something, and they immediately jump to a conclusion without reading it carefully. I hope that is what it is. Because if they understood and read what he wrote, what they say about it is shameful and revealing.
First of all, I think police should be completely defunded and ABOLISHED. I want that because that is what Scripture teaches. But is that what liberals want? Liberals are socialists and statists. How can Obamacare or whatever socialist dream be forced on anyone without government agents with guns?
If my Facebook buddy thinks he’s the target of defunding, does he realize that he’s admitting to being a bad cop?
But it turns out that when you read the article. it directly quotes Ruffalo’s tweets, and it doesn’t say anything about wanting to abolish police. His tweets say:
Defund bad cops and police departments. Tell Obama: We need an executive order!
I stand with the Movement For Black Lives in the fight for peace and justice for Black people. Will you?
It says defund BAD cops. What kind of brainless, cop-worshiping idiot wants to continue funding bad cops? Well, I showed you the original poster. He’s one. There are others.
Laying off bad cops causes one to roll her eyes. Are cops supposed to be tenured people who can’t be fired for doing a bad job? One guy sees the inconsistency of Democrats wanting to ban guns while being protected by armed bodyguards and apparently thinks that applies to every possible situation. He’s so stupid he must be a cop. But wait. There are others who want to defend bad cops.
I really hope these people didn’t read the article or the guy’s tweets and fell for the clickbait article title. I wrote the second to last comment and no one has responded. I hope they will.
I agree that Ruffalo is probably some nutjob leftist. And if he is, there is plenty to pick on him for. But we all need to be more careful when we criticize someone that it doesn’t lead us to do stupid stuff, like protect bad cops from being fired, or defend the liberal position that police should be receiving federal grants, or God forbid that all police departments should be receiving federal grants no matter how good or bad they are. Who is the liberal in this scenario, Ruffalo or the commenters? Who’s for strong unions with untouchable government workers?
We all have traditions that can blind us and cause us to not understand what other people are saying. As unpleasant as it might be, our concern for truth as Christians must cause us to spend time understanding what our “enemies” believe so that we can argue against what they’re really saying, and not against a straw man.
I sincerely hope the commenters here are just making up a strawman to knock down (that’s sinful enough). I hope they’re not actually defending bad cops and departments and hoping for more federal grants for their personal PD. That would make them the nutjob leftists.
Blind Rage
If these officers would take a minute to explain themselves, they might save themselves a lot of trouble. Serving warrants is one of the few valid things police do, though they still are using stolen funds to do it, and the court system probably isn’t issuing warrants in a just manner either. But theoretically, this is one of the things police ought to be doing, rather than having individual discretion to make arrests.
In not-so-distant American history (like up until the 1960s maybe), private citizens could serve warrants, and take people to court. If a private citizen carelessly served a warrant on the wrong person, or did unnecessary damage, they would be responsible for making it right (i.e. writing a check). Of course when it’s the government/cops who act carelessly, it’s the citizens who pick up the tab.
Anyway, here’s the roid raging cops, totally screwing everything up.
Growing Indications that Tony Miano Might Be a Woman
Tony Miano is a statist. I’ve explained it before (<–this article is important), and my concern for Tony is growing. The first interaction I had with Tony was when my former assistant pastor (who was a chaplain for the police department) invited Tony to speak at our church.
At that time, my evangelism partner and I were embroiled in conflict with the police about how we were doing evangelism on Main Street. Apparently some of the police complained to Tony about our methods, and from the pulpit, Tony denounced us and our evangelism. He was speaking out of complete ignorance, and completely mischaracterized what we were doing, but it certainly indicated where he is intellectually.
The next indication of Tony’s character issues came when he stated on Facebook that he thinks theonomy is akin to Islam. Now, Christians may or may not like theonomy, but to refer to God’s civil law as being akin to Islam reveals an astonishing level of stupidity. He accepted the rebuke from many Christians and took a short break from Facebook. I wish it had been a much longer break, because his recent activity is very troubling.
Here’s what he said on Facebook that made his idolatry and character issues so clear.
There is no logical fallacy. This meme is true, but Tony’s presupposition is that Christians need to submit to the state, so he can’t see that the Revolution was instigated by the black robed regiment (Presbyterian pastors) preaching from the pulpits about what Scripture teaches about proper government, and what Christian rebellion ought to look like. Tony thinks that true Christianity leads to submission to tyrants.
I’m willing to concede that the particular founding fathers that Tony lists here weren’t Christians. So what? They played a big role in the revolution, but there were dozens of others with a big role, and thousands of others with smaller roles, many of whom were Christians. These guys on Tony’s list were behaving inconsistently with their unbelieving presuppositions and taking part in the Presbyterian rebellion, aka the revolution.
Tony wouldn’t know a tyrant if he walked up and bit him. Tony is a retired tyrant, and he loves tyrants. He has no idea what the Bible teaches about how we ought to resist tyranny. American Christianity has no biblical doctrine of how to resist tyranny, and we’re reaping what we’ve sown.
Tony has revealed that he has a tender, little soul, because the commenter here, extremely politely, called him ignorant with a morally deficient view of government, and he says the commenter needs to be mindful of his tone. Is Tony a man? This isn’t how a Christian man has a conversation. The commenter’s tone was very polite, and a Christian man shouldn’t respond this way to rebuke. Time for Tony to drop the “little-girl-tea-party routine” and read Proverbs.
I decided to comment on this, even though I was eight days late to the conversation. Tony deleted my comment. Maybe different people look at that differently, but I look at that as being indicative of a serious deficiency in manhood. I realize some popular people are busy so they can’t respond to every comment they receive on social media, but to delete a comment you disagree with shows a huge character problem.
I’ve gone to the Jehovah’s Witness state convention the last couple years, and they refuse to accept literature from us. They are scared that being exposed to a viewpoint critical of their own could lead them away from their religion. I have such little respect for that. My worldview is informed by Scripture, and it will stand up to scrutiny. I don’t have to be scared of being exposed to something critical of Christianity. In fact, I think you ought to expose yourself to things that are critical of your beliefs, because it will force you to more precisely define what you believe, and you’ll better learn how to defend your position.
Obviously, I should have written my comment down. I knew Tony was a pansy who may very well delete it. Here’s what I said as best as I can remember, including the two links.
Tony Miano said, “There is no biblical support for Christians rebelling against government.”
I think Tony missed the entire Old Testament, and has badly misinterpreted Romans 13.
http://reconstructionistradio.com/freedom-conference-the-biblical-christian-duty-to-rebel/
But I guess when you share Adolph Hitler’s interpretation of Romans 13, you have no compunction in deleting comments of someone who disagrees with you.
What Are Christians Smoking?
There has been a lot of cop worship on Facebook from Christian friends lately. Christians aren’t supposed to be into idolatry, but we all have our blind spots. I’d like to respond to a couple of memes in hopes of limiting the idolatry in the future.
First of all, no one has ever said the government or cops want large groups of people dead. They don’t want to kill their source of funds.
But, they are the biggest thieves around, by far. They’ve stolen more from me in unjust taxes than any thief could ever dream. I’m much more worried about their thievery than any amateur thief.
As far as death squads roaming the streets if police stopped patrolling, that wouldn’t happen. The American people are armed. Criminals rarely break into houses with people in them, because they’re much more likely to be shot.
Furthermore, as hard as it is to believe, police aren’t the only option. I can hire private security. If my neighbors were to go in with me, it would become cheap per household to have a guy patrol our block at $12/hour with a gun and a marked car. In fact, he would be able to provide a much better response time, and do it more cost effectively because entrepreneurs are motivated by profit to serve their fellow man in a more cost-efficient manner than government. And private security can’t force me to pay for their service if I don’t want it.
Finally, there have been times when police have stopped patrolling and there was no mass-devastation, or any devastation from gangs of criminals roaming the streets. To say that we would all die if cops left us unprotected is nothing more than government PR, BS, and idolatry.
This one is just as preposterous. Did they protect me from thieves? No, they use threats of violence to steal thousands of dollars from me every year. Did they protect Alton Sterling and hundreds of other victims of police murder every year? No, they murdered them. Did they protect the rights of drivers on the roads who harmed no one? No, they write thousands of tickets per day for “crimes” with no victim to generate revenue for their government.
I had a discussion with an older Christian man who was making fun of Canadian health care, and calling them socialists for their health care system. I pointed out to him that Canadians are only socialist on one more thing (and with Obamacare we’re equal) than Americans. I listed off a few examples including fire services, security services, public schools, and social security. He said, “I don’t mind paying for things like police.” I regret that I was too polite with him. I should have called him an outright commy socialist. The problem with socialism is that people are forced to pay for things they don’t want. He doesn’t want health care from the government, so he’s pissed that he is being forced to pay for it. But, he wants police services from the government, so he’s OK with forcing me to pay for it.
Police need to be abolished. They are the criminal gang. They are the thugs with their colors.