Wednesday, January 22, 2014


There's a fair amount of attention being paid to the claim that cops have killed more Americans since 9/11 than the terrorists killed that day.  Not surprising, but why not include cops with their brethren, the other terrorists?  It's a false distinction.

Anyway, I wish someone would make a distinction between murder-by-cop and a cop killing someone who needs to be killed.  If you or I would face punishment for acting as the cop did in any incident, it's most likely a case of murder.

I accept that some people, in the midst of some actions, need to be killed to protect the innocent- and I can even accept that in some cases the only people present and in danger might be cops, and in that case I wouldn't fault them for killing in self defense.

But further, I would like to see how many of those cases of self defense were made necessary by cops escalating a situation.  If you are enforcing some BS rule such as prohibition (guns or drugs) or trying to help someone violate the private property of an individual through "taxation" or "code enforcement", then you started it, and your actions can't be self defensive at their foundation.  You deserve to die "in the line of 'duty'".  I would be willing to bet the cops wouldn't fare well under such scrutiny, so I doubt the facts will ever be released where they could be analyzed.

I would take an encounter with an honest terrorist whom I could shoot without too much danger of being punished for defending myself over an encounter with a cop, whom I would undoubtedly be punished for defending myself from.

How about you?



  1. I am a sovereign state. Sui Juris.

    The only claim of "jurisdiction" over me is at the point of a potentially loaded and dangerous firearm. It is a distinct advantage when that jurisdiction is claimed by a genuine free-market robber. He knows he's a robber. All he wants is my money, and he's normally willing to let me go free once he gets it. He does not believe he has done me any "service". He has merely robbed me.

    So, if I let him get the drop on me I'm much better off than with a city or state employed robber in costume with a tin badge. Because that robber genuinely believes his robbery is "...protecting and serving...", which makes the robbery much more egregious. Ever hear of "civil asset forfeiture"?


  2. Without a doubt I would rather have a hundred terrorists arrayed against me than one minion of the state....At least I know I won't be punished for self defending myself....