I was contacted "off forum" by a forum subscriber who took offense from my recent postings concerning killing cops. My mention of PTSD military being hired as LEO was interpreted as disrespect for the military. Some of you may feel also feel like the postings were "over the edge." The person who contacted me shall remain anonymous, and the identity of that individual shall remain confidential. But since the bigger question of trusting Law Enforcement is actually the issue, I shall post this response. Before I do, however, please view a poll provided by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, showing the response of more than a thousand who were asked,"
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/blue-crim-poll.htm
Do you
trust the police" Having done so, please read on. .
.
I certainly can understand your response to what I wrote.
You reflected your PERSONAL bias and that is to be expected! Being a
GI yourself, I would expect you to defend other soldiers. But in
trying to explain myself so that you can understand, you'll have to try
to divorce yourself from being "you" and put in your place a LEO who
has just read the postings. If you were a LEO what would your
response be: Anger of a false accusation or
concern that your image is being distorted. Would
you duck the accusation, ignore it, or defend yourself? If I lie
about the brutality and injustice exercised by some LEOs then you should be
angry that I put forth a false witness. One the other hand, if what I say
below makes you consider that you (as a LEO) do have an image problem, what
then shall you say? Read what I've written below as if you were
a member of Law Enforcement.
When I say that we
(militia) "shake a gun in the face of tyrants," who do you suppose
that applies to? Why the patriot's constant open and veiled threat
against tyrants? If you were a kind and level-headed LEO
such as those who once tended to your person needs in such a special way,
what would say about the postings? Would you defend yourself from
the accusations, or would you admit that cops get a "bad rap" because
of the behavior of SOME cops?
Please don't
underestimate the power of peer pressure. Think of this: The
government controlled media has a duty to demonize the militia, thereby
using manufactured consent distort its purpose and
place in our society. The militia's response has been to try to "live down"
the accusations and lies by changing their behavior, rhetoric, and
public image. Now, if you were a LEO who has knowledge of abuses and crimes
from others in the uniform, what would you do? How would you go about
changing the "image," or for that matter, how would you respond to my
postings? If you were honest, you'd agree that there is a Blue Code
of Silence. You'd agree that some, NOT ALL, cops violate the
rights of individuals without hesitation--not all, but it's not ALL that
makes my criticisms necessary.
When cops read these
"extreme postings" they must have some opinion about how some people view
them. I can cite you many instances where cops murdered patriots...shot
them down like dogs... without due process, without Miranda, without a
chance to surrender, without calling on me or other militia leaders to work
as intermediaries to de-escalate the standoffs. These acts of
injustice are well known in the Patriot community.
My harsh and
extreme words are directed TO THE TYRANT, but not the tyrant alone.
There is a reason that I speak to all Law Enforcement. You see, there are
good cops who want be lawful. Remember
that, please. Not every cop is a bad cop, but when good cops
will not exert the pressure on abusive thugs in uniform to change, what
does that say about the good cops? If good cops remain silent
about the abuses of bad cops, isn't that the same as silent approval?
Why do they condone the actions of bad cops by their silence?
Perhaps that's why the cops won't hold Town Hall meetings with the public
because they don't want to answer that very question!
Something too you need to remember about extreme rhetoric, it is a very useful
tool in creating peace. Does that statement surprise
you? Do you know the US Foreign Policy during the 50 and early
60s concerning MAD? Why was the extreme rhetoric of Mutually Assured
Destructive useful in keeping the peace? Think it
through. We told the Russians that we had 2000 nukes ready to launch
IF THEY ATTACKED. The Russians said the same thing. Neither the
US nor the Soviets really knew how far to push their threats that may be
interpreted as an attack. Indeed, the entire Cuban Missile Crisis
was an exercise in extreme rhetoric. We finally scared the Russians enough
to pull the offensive missiles
out of Cuba.
Such a
mutual agreement that either side can annihilate the other actually brought
peace and a desire to agree on nuclear disarmament. Let me ask you, when
you see cops in black Kevlar, with hardened vehicles, and exotic weapons,
wearing hoods and masks to conceal their identity, what do you receive as
the message they want to send? Why do they look so powerful and
frightening. Why do they look
more like Storm Troopers than Peace Officers? When there is a dynamic
entry/arrest taking place,
why all the yelling and screaming by the cops? Do you realize that
in those moments, these men become transformed by the adrenalin rush and the
anxiety of the event? It is not peace officers who I defend against,
but rather those who become monsters when they are unleashed. You may
remember the movie, "Hurt Locker." Why did young soldier go
back into harm's way? What was he addicted to that required his
return to the war zone so that he could get his fix?
As I
mentioned before in the posting, I have never heard of a Law Enforcement
Town Hall meeting where LEOs talk with the public.
Why? You say that I should be civil and non threatening, and
yet, could it be that there is no public dialogue because we the people
will have some information that is best left unsaid? How do you
explain or interpret the Poll that I cited at http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/blue-crim-poll.htm
Don't you think that in the atmosphere of oppression and corruption
by our government, that cops themselves should extend the olive branch to
the public? Why haven't they? Why is it that we the people must
bow to the power and control of Law Enforcement when we know the amount of
corruption behind their actions. And, we haven't even discussed what
happens in the court room when LEOs tell outright lies and/or withhold the
truth!! You cannot say this DOESN'T happen. IT
DOES!! Who then are the good cops and the bad cops?
When a good cop says nothing to stop an injustice, isn't that a
cover-up?
Also, after wearing the uniform for more than 20
years, I have earned the right to criticize the military. To NOT
speak out about the abusive mentality of ex-military who go to work in Law
Enforcement is to say that I should cover-up their misdeeds. Should I be
silent when men who SHOULD be receiving help are instead put in a uniform
and released into the general public with lethal force as their primary
tool to subdue us? Being silent about the wrongful actions of fellow soldiers is
just as bad as cops remaining silent about the abusive actions
of other LEOs. What would you do if you had exclusive
knowledge about the massacre at My Lai?
I was contacted by a
dispatcher from one of the large Law Enforcement agencies in our
area. The dispatcher was pro-militia and a Constitutionalist. The
individual told me that I am on a "cautionary stop" list, meaning that no one
cop will attempt to stop me without another cruiser
alongside. Now, I don't know what that means to you or to
anyone else, but to me it means freedom and peace. It means also that I
have a greater responsibility to make sure I abide by traffic laws because
I am a responsible motorist. It also means that I won't be stopped for
the amusement of bored cops or the training of newbie’s. It also
means that the cops KNOW that I am armed and that I am aware that a vast
majority of cops are "good guys," but that some just want strut their
stuff. If I am stopped by multiple cops, it must also mean that
they think I've done something very wrong. In that case, they need to talk with
me. You see, there's responsibility all around. The fact that we the
people have parity with those who would violate our rights provides a safe
environment for both. You might consider gun control. Do you
believe that we the people should have the same weapons that Law Enforcement
carry? If not, why not?
You can imagine the uneasiness of the Alaska
Troopers who visited my home because of complaints from neighbors about the
gunfire. I treated them with the respect they probably WERE
TOLD not to expect! On two
occasions, individual troopers came by. In each contact, they left very
satisfied when I showed them my range, and also when we ceased shooting
immediately when we found out that kids were having an outside birthday
party a mile away and were nervous about the noise. No hassle, no
disrespect, and
no threats. Respect is a two way street. If
I'm treated with respect, I will give it, measure for
measure.
So, there's another reason for the extreme
rhetoric. It makes for far more reasonable and rational
contacts. Treat me with respect and I will treat you with
respect, that's all I've ever asked from the cops. Having a
dozen patriot friends gunned down by SWAT teams, snipers, or shooters from
helicopters, I've come to realize that to stop the growth of the police
state and the unlawful controls being forced on the people by the central
government, I must rely on the doctrine of Assured Mutual
Destruction. I may not like it, but what else
can I do? Do you think that you will stop a cop
from arresting you by pleading your cause? Do you think that by
being buddies with LE, you'll turn the growing tide of oppression and
the government increases its power over the people and the elimination
of Constitutional protections? I'm not asking to be a law
breaker without consequences, but rather it is my responsibility to abide
by the law as best I can. I merely ask that Law Enforcement do the
same. Why is it, for example, that a cop can lie on the stand
without fear, yet if I do it, I will be guilty of
perjury?
Patriots across the land wrestle with the question
of "can you trust the cops?" If I answer NO, does that become a
condemnation against our fellow soldiers or some kind of an insult directed
toward Law Enforcement? (remember, I spent more than 20 years in
the military). If I say "I don't trust the cops and I will
defend myself with lethal force if my life is threatened without lawful cause,"
and some of them happen to be ex-military who concealed their mental
disorder, how can you logically apply that to all military who take jobs as
cops? It isn't logical or is it fair.
As I said, the peer pressure of good cops OUGHT TO control the behavior of the
bad ones, but the Blue Code of Silence PREVENTS that from happening. You
and I and everyone else know it. So just how to you protect
yourself from the bad cops?
If you have an answer for that, please let me (and all
of us) know.
Cmdr
I have not posted on this forum for nearly 8 months I believe. I have sat back, shut up, and just watched. I read the emails, not all of them, but most. I am not quite sure what to say. I think most everything that Mr. Waddell said is very valid. I felt inclined to the extent that I should back him up. I think the word militia has just about been painted as close to terrorist as possible. As far as the PTSD issue, for all the non vets on that read this, just so you are all aware, the military docs umbrella diagnose PTSD. I would guess maybe 25 percent of all of those who have been diagnosed with it, have it to an extent that would be dangerous. Also, I wave at the cops here all the time, they leave me alone, I have a Gun control is using both hands sticker on my ball hitch cover and USMC plates, never have had an issue. If you go out looking for a fight, i am sure you will find one. I myself will be trying to do what ever I think is best to help others which may include helping law enforcement when SHTF. For me its not where your allegiances are, its how competent you are and what you are trying to do. If the cops are good cops, and they are trying to help, and when I talk to them they seem sincere, then they have my full support. Same goes with the national guard. I still am on contract for another 6 months with the Marines, so if SHTF within that time frame there's a good chance I won't even be here. I love the fact there are proud patriots out there, that there is good men and women who are preparing for rough roads ahead. All I want to get across to who ever reads this, is do it smart, and be sincere with what ever choice it is you decide to make.
Ok, turn me into the bad guy Norm,
Chief Waddell,I did not identify you, but I did want to get "out in front of this issue," that is, I wantedto open this discussion to everyone and let everyone know where we all stand. I knowthat my postings have created some controversy and it's best to find out where we allstand since we may be called upon to ally ourselves at some point in the future. I certainlydon't want to be "blind-sided" later down the road.I didn't make you into the bad by. In fact, I asked you to look at my point of viewAS IF you were a member of Law Enforcement. You would never have toidentify yourself, but I'm glad that you did. There was nothing personalintended. It is not "you" v. "me" but rather two totally different points of view thatare in contention and open for debate. That is why all militia must choose NOW where to stand.I've had this debate several times over the past 17 years. Historically, whenever the militia got a black eyebecause of the actions of one of it's members, the entire militia shifted into damagecontrol. Many of the things you've said below are misstated, historically inaccurate,or distorted, but I will not take the time to correct them all since it wouldn't make muchdifference. I just ask for a fair and accurate debate without rancor or disrespect foranother's point of view.I do think it would be good to get these viewpoints out in the open and allow everyoneto make his/her choice as to where they want to stand if they want to stand at all.It would be totally wrong for me to hide my feelings and difference of opinion. I wanteveryone to know where I stand and that I've not strayed one degree from the initialcourse I set back in April of 1994.We all have the 1st Amendment and freedom to express ourselves without feelingthreatened for what we say. I therefore invite all voices, dissenting or otherwiseto take part in this important discussion.If you have something to say, feel free to express it. If you end up disagreeing witheither point of view, that's okay. Discussing the issue will help in making a clearand educated choice. I honor those who speak their mind. There's an old sayingthat "iron sharpens iron." I believe that to be true. Debates can help to know wherewe all stand.Norm Olson
--
----- Original Message -----From: Justin Nusunginya
--