The Fall of Law Enforcement

I have mixed feelings about what I’m going to say to you in the following paragraphs. Something is happening which I’ve long cheered for, but it is happening for the wrong reasons, and I fear the outcome. Then again, I never imagined this would happen cleanly or without some amount of fear, so from that perspective you might say everything is going according to plan.

The phenomenon to which I refer, is a growing resentment of law enforcement. Resentment is not nearly strong enough of a word, in fact. Even the word “hate” fails to fully describe what is going on. It is literally to the point of police being gunned down while pumping gas, just for being cops.

Many times across the pages of this website I’ve reveled over the deaths and discomforts of police and other government agents. This has made a great many people quite angry with me, to the point of receiving death threats and hate mail in such volume that I couldn’t read all of them in a two hour podcast. I understand why my doing so makes them upset, because, if I am entirely honest with you, I have the same emotional reaction to what I’m saying that they do. I’ve had some very positive interactions with law enforcement as of late. They even came to my aid. On a personal level, I actually like some of these guys, and I find the conflict of interests here quite unfortunate.

The Fall of Law Enforcement

The Fall of Law Enforcement

Despite what an uninformed reader may come away thinking from reading some of those pieces, I despise violence. I am anti-government, because the State is the most violent institution mankind has ever conjured. Years of attempting to negotiate peacefully for that institution to cease its unending violent victimization of peaceful people have been quite fruitless, and so at some point I realized violence between free men and agents of the State was, for better or worse, inevitable.

For me though, I’ve attempted to keep this grounded in reason and reality. Every traffic stop is a death threat. All police officers are, by the very nature of their profession, aggressors. So using violence to deter them from their aggressions is quite sensible and decent. We would all do well to see ourselves living in a culture of resistance to aggression.

What is happening today though seems quite senseless. It more resembles a race war than a revolution, and this I can find no pleasure in. 

The law enforcer’s disconnection from the people they victimize however, is not helping matters. Take the aforementioned incident of a Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy being gunned down while pumping gas. Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, had just left an accident scene when he stopped by a gas station on Telge and West Road. As he was pumping gas, a man approached him from behind, said nothing and fired multiple shots. Once the deputy fell to the ground, the suspect fired more shots. This put an end to Goforth’s life, and in the process his drain on the taxpayers and his victimizations of the public.

“It’s an act of cowardice and brutality the likes of which I’ve never seen,” said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson.

“I’ve been in law enforcement 45 years,” Sheriff Hickman said. “I don’t recall another incident this cold blooded and cowardly.”

Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls tweeted this message of support this morning: “Despite the cowardice attack last night, we will continue to provide professional (law enforcement) services to our communities. Be careful out there.”

The frequent use of the word “coward” here I find amusing. This is always said whenever somebody guns down a cop ambush style, as if they would have called the killer brave had he invited the officer to take ten paces with dueling pistols. Law enforcement is not in the habit of engaging in what anybody would describe as fair fights. They prey on the public for their sustenance, and they are only able to do so because they always bring overwhelming force to any conflict they might engage in. Swat teams break down doors in the middle of the night and throw explosive devices inside the homes of sleeping people. They rush in with body armor and automatic weapons when people least expect it, kill anyone who dares resist, and throw chains on the survivors.

I don’t like the idea of someone being shot in the back while pumping gas any more than anyone else. I’m quite happy to assume the person who did this was not a brave revolutionary, but rather some race obsessed criminal scum. That being said, it is important to understand that Goforth was not some innocent victim gunned down for no reason. Until police come to terms with the nature of their profession, and that nature is fundamentally altered, we can expect to see incidents like these become increasingly worse, and more frequent.

Put simply, “law enforcement” in the presence of the modern State is the act of using violence to carry out the will of politicians. Nobody has a problem with you saying that politicians are criminal scum. Everyone seems to understand that, no matter how frequently they pack themselves into voting booths and endorse their criminality.

A smaller, but still significant number of people have no problem with saying that people have the right to use violence to defend themselves against violent criminals.

So when police use overwhelming levels of violence to carry out the will of elected criminal scum, I have trouble imagining the disconnect in the minds of people who say it is wrong to kill them. Since police are not in the habit of inviting their victims to duels, but rather ambushing them while they sleep if the opportunity presents itself, or massively outnumbering and outgunning their prey, why would they expect the people who strike back against them to show any mercy whatsoever?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck. That’s how violence works, and law enforcement knows this all too well. If the guy who shot this cop is a coward in the eyes of the police, then the police themselves are something far worse than cowards. At least the cop killer went after a criminal who had actually harmed people, and who was armed, and awake. That’s far more than we can say of the vast majority of people police kidnap and murder on a daily basis.

The hubris of Sheriff Troy Nehls to say “Despite the cowardice attack last night, we will continue to provide professional (law enforcement) services to our communities” in the wake of the attack further shows the aforementioned disconnect. Worded differently he could say “We don’t care if our actions so enrage the community that they see fit to shoot us in the back while we fuel our vehicles, we so enjoy our rampant crime and oppression that we will lay down our lives to continue it” and it would convey an identical message.

This kind of callous disregard for public sentiment is resulting in riots and arson and murder. Police purport to be very concerned about the public perception of their profession, but are fundamentally unwilling to change their actions in response. In perpetuity they say they want better relations with their communities, and in the same breath pledge to continue violently victimizing the innocent and murdering anyone who dares to resist. From what other group would we tolerate such belligerence? I would posit that one does not exist.

That belligerence is why we are witnessing the downfall of law enforcement before our very eyes, and I fear for our future as a result. It is simply impossible for this to continue much longer in the way that it has. We can certainly do without police in their modern form, but we will require security forces of some sort. Since the driving force behind this rising climate of hate is essentially a pro-government, racially motivated group – as opposed to a rejection of State violence in its entirety – what comes to replace the modern police State is terribly unlikely to take the form of market based protection services. Instead we can look forward to America coming to resemble the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, where police became so overwhelmed by the violence and disorder, that military came to replace them.

Yet, even this will not restore order because nobody is willing to address the underlying problem. They are only willing to throw ever increasing amounts of violence and deception into the equation, making matters worse. Despite what many would tell you, the problem is not racism, or privilege, or wealth inequality. It is the utter disconnect from reality giving sway to the notion that initiatory violence by State agents is capable of solving problems. In reality, it is not. We have thousands of years of history, and a ceaseless stream of present day news stories showing how catastrophically this system has not only failed to bring us the safety and security it promises, but actually perpetrates that which it purports to protect us from.

So when the tanks begin rolling down our streets, when blue uniforms are replaced by camouflage body armor, and even this fails to stem the violence, know this. The anarchists so many hated, threatened, mocked, and condemned as violent lunatics, were the only ones who lifted a finger to prevent any of it from happening.

 

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Armed Antagonist

    I’m far more afraid of an armed, organized gang of state sponsored terrorists hurting my family or myself than some random gangbanging thugs. Also since police don’t prevent crime I could care less if they are or are not replaced with private security who also most likely wouldn’t prevent any crime.

    • At least with random gangbangers you can defend yourself and have a pretty damm good chance at still being a free man after its all said and done. Much more difficult if not impossible with you defending yourselves from government thugs.

      In regards to private security at least with that if they dont fit your needs or do the job up to your standards you can take your money to another private security company. One cant do that with government unless you decide to move to another town but even then it’s still a monopoly on force.

      • Bob_Robert

        Someone without a badge breaks into your house and threatens you with a gun, and you shoot them, you’re the hero.

        Someone with a badge breaks into your house and threatens you with a gun, and you shoot them, you’re the villain.

        That just does not work. And I believe what we’re seeing is the emotional result of that conflict playing out.

        • Coralyn Herenschrict

          That’s not what’s driving popular sentiment. People are not protesting the notion police have more rights than them. They are merely protesting the details of how police exercise those superhuman rights. Only because people lack any other outlet for expressing dissatisfaction with the tenor of treatment received.

          In Soviet Russia, if people were dissatisfied with the quality of the bread, they might protest the current state of affairs with the bread and even march demanding the government supply better bread. This is a totally different thing than protesting and marching against the government monopolizing bread baking.

          Sadly, current protests against police violence are protests against form not substance.

          • Bob_Robert

            I agree with you. I post the objection on principle in order to get the principle, the “protest against substance”, out there where people can see it.

            In Soviet Russia, bread lined YOU. 🙂

            Ok, maybe that’s not a good one.

            Edit: Indeed, without an underlying principle there can be no attack except at the branches, in detail, where people are easily put off by non-substantive reform rather than substantive change.

            I think it’s deliberate. The governments of the world have had generations of think-tanks hiring the best and brightest in psychology and sociology, to come up with effective divide and conquer tactics.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Yes, I agree, the government is content with people fussing over the method of violence to be used against them. Such “protest” is actually a form of submissive entreaty. It accepts and reinforces the fundamental legitimacy of government aggression.

            Heck, government probably appreciates the feedback. It wants to file off the edges of its techniques of aggression. Make it more palatable, socially acceptable, and obscured. The more “civilized” the techniques come across, the more aggression can be gotten away with. It’s terrible PR to have police filmed physically beating up people. Or drawing guns in full public view and spilling blood in the streets. Visibly contradicts the “protect and serve” storyline.

            Better to employ threats backed up by out-of-sight, out-of-mind violence. Such as locking opponents in foul, tiny cages for years where they get raped. Or guaranteeing lifelong financial ruin for anyone obtaining a criminal record. Or silently taking away 10% of everyone’s money every year through inflation. For the sophisticated aggressor, indirect, velvet-glove techniques yielding calm, orderly capitulation are best.

            The British showed they understand the art of ruling when they visibly disarmed their public-facing police force. Pure marketing genius. They didn’t care about defending anyone from criminals anyway. They installed public cameras tracking everyone and stage raids to discretely snatch targets when and where convenient. No muss, no fuss, no PR issues.

  • Richard Chiu

    Ultimately, the only solution is the end of all mandated wealth redistribution (i.e. organized robbery). Without the use of force to rob the sane and productive to support the insane and destructive, insanity will become the province of those with genuine mental incapacity to adopt survival positive attitudes.

    Like you, I would prefer that this occur because of intelligent people of goodwill banding together in common cause to resist organized crime, particularly the subjugation of entire populations through regular terrorism. But the fact is that intelligent people of goodwill represent a tiny minority of the population anyway, and faced with historical circumstances, intelligence and goodwill come into conflict. The emotional difficulty that any person of goodwill has in confronting the reality we face is sufficient to make most of them choose to be rather less intelligent so they can’t see the truth, or rather less benevolent so they don’t feel so bad about it.

    For the most part, I choose the latter. Not that I had all that much goodwill in the first place, but when I find the burden of compassion for posterity driving me into an emotional corner, I turn off my compassion rather than my intellect. That’s why I can look at Xi and smile at the thought of what he’s doing and plans to do. It’s all just a fascinating game, you see, and instead of being a Cassandra I choose to revel in seeing what others will not.

    The fact of the matter is that, even if Beijing doesn’t succeed in collapsing the dollar from without, the internal economic contradictions and weaknesses of the U.S. ensure total economic collapse once the Federal government attempts widespread martial law. And without the ability to simply conjure a globally accepted fiat currency into existence, the U.S. cannot pay the mercenaries willing to follow their criminal orders.

    The critical thing to understand about the cops is that they are generally not doctrinaire Marxists like SJW’s who depend on government force to accomplish their ends. Cops are simply ordinary criminals who are committing violent acts because they get paid for it. Just like ordinary criminals, they convince themselves that they somehow deserve the wealth they obtain through crime. Once they are no longer getting a secure supply of wealth at low risk by following government orders, they will find alternatives.

    This won’t happen all at once, but as individual circumstances dictate. A cop with a relatively safe assignment won’t defect as fast as one assigned to go out and confiscate food, fuel, and arms from people who have them. But once manipulation of the fiat currency system can no longer be used to steal wealth without direct confiscation, the most necessary aspect of the organized crime becomes the weakest link.

    • Don Duncan

      I view intellect as indispensable for survival. Goodwill, with common sense, is better than the opposite for survival also. With discretion, goodwill is practical.

  • Don Duncan

    I don’t think we will see a uniform response to the police state everywhere. Some places will be safe and sound. I plan to go there. If I am wrong, it’s a big planet. But I won’t give up on here until it looks hopeless, even after the worst violence has stopped. No one knows what will happen, especially with the ‘net.

  • IRONMANAustralia

    I don’t know anything about this case, but did you catch the guy’s “criminal history” read out at the Press Conference?

    • Resisting arrest
    • Trespass
    • Evading detention
    • Disorderly conduct with a firearm

    Ooh, he sounds like such an evil career criminal.

    I want to know what he actually did to earn those charges though, since I can well imagine that Grisham dude getting charged with at least three of those on a fucking boy scout walk, (four if he accidentally took a wrong turn or a shortcut across a farmer’s field).

    I like the way Hickman said he has a criminal history that “includes” those charges. Implying what? We are to assume that there’s worse shit in there he didn’t bother to mention?

    Maybe he did something deserving of those charges, or they are lesser
    and unrepresentative due to a plea deal or something, but it seems like
    there should be a few more on there if if he “trespassed” on a bank branch, acted “disorderly with a firearm” by brandishing it in a teller’s face, “evaded detention” as he left with a bag of money with a dollar sign on it, and “resisted arrest” when the cops showed up yelling, “You’ll never take me alive copper!”

    If that’s the worst they have, it’s at least possible this guy had seen cops acting unlawfully, unjustly, piling on bullshit charges firsthand, and has some cause to be pissed off with them.

    Just sayin’.

    • Richard Chiu

      The “disorderly conduct with a firearm” charge is particularly telling.

      “Brandishing a firearm or showing it to other people can result in a disorderly conduct charge, especially if you intend your actions to cause fear in others. For example, if you are at a party and you lift up your shirt to show someone that you are carrying a pistol in your waistband, this can be disorderly conduct. It’s important to note that it doesn’t matter if the weapon is loaded for you to be found guilty of this crime. Also, you might be charged with disorderly conduct if you fire a weapon in an attempt to scare someone. However, if you fire a weapon recklessly or without caring that your actions might lead to someone else being harmed, this can lead to more serious assault charges.”

      Note that there is no indication of an illegal possession charge here, so either there was no evidence that the firearm in question was real, or he owned it and carried it legally and was not found to have committed any other crime.

      So, plausible scenario, the guy was on private property which was open to the public, someone claimed he had a firearm, he leaves, the cops show up and are forced to walk their fat asses a block or two to (illegally) search him and find nothing (because the alleged firearm never existed in the first place), but arrest him anyway over his justifiable protests.

      If he lost his job or whatever over this (not impossible) in addition to being arrested for this BS, then I’d say he might have felt some lingering hostility towards the police.

  • The only good cop is a dead one. Whether they die by the hands of a Black serves to put fear into predators that prey on them.

  • paendragon

    Re: ” the State is the most violent institution mankind has ever conjured. Years of attempting to negotiate peacefully for that institution to cease its unending violent victimization of peaceful people have been quite fruitless, and so at some point I realized violence between free men and agents of the State was, for better or worse, inevitable. For me though, I’ve attempted to keep this grounded in reason and reality. Every traffic stop is a death threat. All police officers are, by the very nature of their profession, aggressors. So using violence to deter them from their aggressions is
    quite sensible and decent. We would all do well to see ourselves living in a culture of resistance to aggression. What is happening today though seems quite senseless. It more resembles a race war than a revolution, and this I can find no pleasure in.”

    DO YOU REALIZE THE RACE-WAR IS FOMENTED BY THE STATE’S RULERS(!)?

    • Bob_Robert

      It’s called “divide and conquer”, and it works really well.

  • paendragon

    Re: “This kind of callous disregard for public sentiment is resulting in riots and arson and murder.”

    Well, no it doesn’t – while you think that it SHOULD result in this, you’ve also admitted here that what’s really currently motivating it is the State’s (Obama’s) divide-and-conquer race-war-baiting strategy.

    And, Re: “Police purport to be very concerned about the public perception of their profession, but are fundamentally unwilling to change their actions in response. In perpetuity they say they want better relations with their communities, and in the same breath pledge to continue violently victimizing the innocent and murdering anyone who dares to resist. From what other group would we tolerate such belligerence? I would posit that one does not exist.”

    Cantwell, you do realize that, when cops aren’t being “evil” in ticketing the “innocent” speeding drunk drivers such as yourself, they are often engaged in facing down violent armed criminal scumbags?

    And if that sort of thing makes them wary and prone to often over-react to the less dangerous citizens (those of you who, like yourself, are “only” routinely negligently endangering innocent others) then can you really blame them for it?

    Bearing in mind that I generally agree that their job-description would more honestly read: “Paid Slanderers.”

    😉

    • Richard Chiu

      Non-government affiliated violent gangbangers spend a lot more time facing down violent armed criminal scumbags (including cops) than cops do. The statistics demonstrate this conclusively, despite the fact that face-offs between non-government affiliated violent criminals are much less likely to end in lethal violence when the cops are not involved.

      That doesn’t excuse any other crimes they may commit. It doesn’t mean I can’t blame NG thugs for how often they over-react to innocent bystanders…which, for the record, they do a lot less often than cops do (largely because, unlike cops, they face significant consequences for doing so).

      It just means that if there were no cops, there would still be a reason for responsible individuals to carry personal defense weapons (including but not limited to compact select-fire rifles designated PDW’s).

      • paendragon

        Unfortunately, locally-designated neighborhood defense militias could also turn into the bad guy’s’ goon posse, as seen in Western movies.

        • Richard Chiu

          So we’re afraid of getting rid of the big bad because it might leave room for a smaller bad that’s easier to defeat?

          • paendragon

            The surveillance and communication tech cops use to call for reinforcements and track you down long after you think you’ve gotten away, is available to everyone else right now, too.
            Even “unofficial” armed psychos can SWAT you at will; ten goons with guns are no more or less dangerous than 1,000.

          • Richard Chiu

            Yes, but a single determined survivor with the same level of technology can plausibly hunt down and kill ten goons for revenge. That’s really difficult against 800,000.

          • paendragon

            Break up the piggies’ gangs and they’ll not only stay in touch with each other, but become even more dangerous as they all seek out similar employment with less restrictions anyway.

          • Richard Chiu

            Less restrictions, but less security…particularly of life and limb.

            The smaller a band of criminals, the more danger of retaliation the individual criminals face. This is true both because there is more available resistance to smaller groups of criminals and because smaller groups of criminals cannot have as many “insulating layers” in their hierarchy to shield the decision-makers from the effects of their decisions.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    Agreed. The popular revolt against institutional authority seen in the U.S. Revolution and the French Revolution alike merely led to replacing rule by oppressive kings with rule by oppressive socialist demagogues.

    Protesting oppression rather than accepting it is of course a necessary first step. But without the equally necessary second step of principled movement toward freedom, such protest will ultimately be ineffectual as it won’t lead to any better state of affairs.

  • Bob_Robert

    I only disagree on one point: “where police became so overwhelmed by the violence and disorder, that military came to replace them”

    The “civilian” police _is_ the standing army the generation of 1776 warned us against. They’ve simply been less overtly armed and armored than the ones labeled “military”, at least that is the perception they try to give. The tanks and machine guns tell a different story.

    I, too, wish that people would turn away from institutional violence, rather than act in such a way that the institutional violence seems justified.

  • John Rooney

    “I’ve been in law enforcement 45 years,” Sheriff Hickman said. “I don’t recall another incident this cold blooded and cowardly.”
    It’s obvious the not so good Sheriff never heard about Walter Scott being casually gunned down in the back by a Cop. Or citizens shot in the back while face down and handcuffed. Or my favorite, the black man who shot himself in the back of the head while handcuffed, in the back of a squad car, having been searched, TWICE! Or the countless other blatant acts of cowardice perpetrated in the last 30 years and more by members of his fraternity.