When Is It OK To Kill A Police Officer?
OWS Phoenix Camp Gets “Legal Advice” Manifesto
By Dell Hill
It has come to this.
started out as a kumbaya, make love not war, peaceful protest has
evolved into something entirely different with the release of this
report by The Blaze.
A disturbing flyer is allegedly making its way around the Occupy Phoenix camp. And it’s targeting cops.
Yesterday, the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC — a division of the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety) reportedly released a bulletin announcing the chilling document that seems to endorse and justify the killing of law enforcement officers.
of the “informational” letter were apparently left on a table with
other documents to “educate” protesters at Occupy Phoenix. A bulletin
that appears to be from the ACTIC notifies officers of the document, but
says that no credible threats against law enforcement official have
been uncovered (yet its investigation continues).
next time you hear of a police officer being killed “’in the line of
duty,’ take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in
that case, the ‘law enforcer’ was the bad guy and the ‘cop killer’ was
the good guy,” the alleged document concludes. “As it happens, that has
been the case more often than not throughout human history.”
We are posting the entire text of this document, without edit or comment.
“When Should You Shoot A Cop?
question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go
into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see
who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to
forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently
demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and
an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from
thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be
justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence,
torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of
“law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it.
get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some
of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or
Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in
history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent
people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a
ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a
in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law
enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the
history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there
had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state
mercenaries of those regimes.
don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other
countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country”, their
OWN “government”, and their OWN “law enforcers”, in any sort of
objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling
class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a.
“patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a
virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply
unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And
humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the
effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of
people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the
face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction
have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually
talk about “working within the system”-the same system that is
responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that
“the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they
want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist-that if they
want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,”
which is what anyone who resists “legal” justice is automatically
labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom
and justice almost always do so “illegally” – i.e., without the
permission of the ruling class.
politician think that they have the right to impose any “law” they
want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law”,
they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the
consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And
not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define
what counts as “law”, then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers”
to combat tyranny.
any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on
drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops
and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g.,
at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border,
“sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself
the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things,
doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions?
Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even
non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate
you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be
tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a
cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or
not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop.
You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will
always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or
dead.Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET
“law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP
them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them.
(Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track
record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which
declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against
the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent
absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION
to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself
against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical
ramifications of that attitude.
were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words
now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of
“government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean?
The messages from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane.
It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without
probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we
have the right to arrest you if you try.”
not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it?
“You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut
you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that
that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the
right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you,
and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and
the Branch Dividians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify
against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a
‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a
“right” –what does the term “right” even mean- if you have an obligation
to allow the jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It make the
term absolutely meaningless.
be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone
tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if he has a badge and a
politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use
whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what
it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable
right to speak you mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the
right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have
the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL
“government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not
be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the
right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t
like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have
the right to forcibly resist injustice – even if the injustice is
called the “law” – that logically implies that you have an obligation to
allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you,
your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices:
you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at
all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to
oppress you. There can be no other option.
course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called
“government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a
big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which
is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go
along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is
pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have
occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most
people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?”
The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When
oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law- breaker.” When those
violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.
next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of
duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in
that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was
the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not
throughout human history.”
The Blaze contacted News Talk AM 1130 in Minneapolis, which posted the documents Friday. According to the station, it received them from a law enforcement officer in Arizona.
The Blaze also reached out to the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety as well as ACTIC and they have confirmed the memo.
(H/T: David & Emmer at News-Talk AM 1130 in Minnesota’s Twin Cities)