Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Changes needed to ensure justice

Changes needed to ensure justice

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 21, 2012)

"Justice" is the attempt to take an individual who has been harmed by an act of aggression or property loss and correct the damage; to return the victim to as close to the "pre-victimized condition" as is possible.

What, then, is "injustice"? It is often simply the lack of justice. This could be injustice through omission or a case of justice being impossible to provide. Or, it could be (and often is) the opposite of justice. Anti-justice.

This might be the attempt to harm an individual who has already been harmed by an attack or a theft. Laws that criminalize the failure to report a stolen gun being one example.

Injustice could be the attempt to punish an individual for an offense they didn't actually commit. This happens more than most people want to admit- just check out The Innocence Project to see how many innocent people have been railroaded into a conviction just because "someone needs to be punished" when a law is broken, and because prosecutors and judges want to be seen as "tough on crime".

Injustice could also be the attempt to punish an individual for doing something "illegal" that does not harm any individual nor anyone's private property; a "mala prohibitum" act. There is never any justice involved in prosecuting any victimless crime; doing so always creates a victim out of thin air.

If you advocate, pass, support, or enforce any "law" which attempts to criminalize and punish anything other than a physical attack on an innocent person, or the theft or destruction of private property, the result will always be injustice. If you permit a government court to handle any case where the government is an interested party, an egregious conflict of interest, the result will frequently be injustice.

To ensure justice, some things need to change fundamentally. All laws concerned with anything other than an attack on the innocent or the violation of private property need to be abolished and everyone imprisoned for these false offenses needs to be freed immediately. The incentive to punish someone, anyone, for every crime needs to take a back seat to finding the real perpetrator and making things right with his victim through restitution. Finally, courts need to be separated from the control of the government and there needs to be competition in providing this service.

If you value justice you will insist on these changes; if you only give lip service to justice while actually thirsting for punishment and retribution you'll be content with the status quo. Where do you stand?


"Officer safety"

I despise the bogus concept of "officer safety".  What a completely disgusting justification for anything some corrupt cop (redundancy alert) wants to do to you.

Why would a reaver's safety be more important than mine or anyone else's?  Why shouldn't I be able to disarm and cuff any cop I encounter as a safety precaution?  You know, just until I ascertain that he is not a threat to me or to anyone else ("the public")?  Who is actually more likely to shoot whom?  Well, check out the statistics for yourself.

I don't shoot people whom I claim were driving "too fast", or whose tires I claim crossed a painted stripe, just because they don't wish to be stopped and robbed or kidnapped by me.  Cops do.  I don't shoot people who are trying to get away from me.  Cops do.  I don't break into people's houses because they are doing something I don't like, and then murder them if they resist.  Cops do.  I don't rob, kidnap, or murder people for growing some kind of plant.  Cops do.  So exactly who is endangered by whom?

I don't feel endangered by some guy with a holstered gun on his hip, unless he also wears a badge.  Cops do.  I don't even feel endangered by most people who have unholstered their gun- unless, once again, they hide behind a badge.  Cops flip out over that.  The reason I don't is that I am not a coward, I am not paranoid, and I don't go around escalating situations that I initiate.  It's that simple.

If a LEO feels he needs to violate people for his own "safety", it indicates to me that he knows he is guilty of doing things that normal people know are wrong.  A guilty conscience- probably combined with an instinctual knowledge that his victims would be ethically justified in killing him for his evil behavior- makes his own safety become his primary concern.  It shows that he is a violator and a coward, and somewhere deep inside he probably knows it.

If a cop is concerned about his safety, he can do the same things others do for safety.  Wear a seatbelt- or not; don't look down the barrel of your gun to see if it's loaded; don't initiate car chases; don't trespass; don't rob; don't be an aggressor; don't stick your tongue into light sockets; don't harass people who are minding their own business; and don't interfere with travelers.  Distilled down: don't be an idiot or a prick and your safety factor increases exponentially.

But this is too hard for people whose brains are encumbered with the Enforcer Defect.

They want to be able to be a bad guy and still go home at the end of their shift- after doing the wrong thing for hours at your expense.  Well, Officer, the rest of us have just as much right to go home at the end of your shift as you do.  And unless we are stupid enough to seek you out, our lives are worth more than yours could ever be.  We didn't start it.  And we outrank you, since you are supposed to be our servant.  You're a butler-gone-bad.

Your cowardice, paranoia, and your sense of entitlement is an indication that you can't be trusted with any amount of "authority".  You need to go find an honest job and stop being a predator.  Unfortunately most cops can't handle a real job- especially one that has real risks beyond the minuscule "risks" their preferred "career" entails.  That's obvious since they keep being cops.

Well, Mr. Cop, your safety means as much to me as the safety of a rapist.  I don't need your "help".  You're fired.  Now, go away.