A CONVERSATION WITH SEBASTOPOL, CA POLICE OFFICER ROBERT SMITH

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leadfoot

New member
This is scary. And this guy thinks patriots will just let him go home and enjoy his pension and live happily ever after. Incredible!

http://www.ccops.org/copsagainstccops.html

Cops Against CCOPS

October 31, 2000

The Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS

Do you want to know why we founded CCOPS? It's not just a vague fear about something that "might
happen someday." Not just an overdose of George Orwell's 1984.

The answer lies in this remarkable letter from Attorney Peter Mancus. Mr. Mancus had a conversation with a law officer not long ago, and
wrote it all down afterward. He has shared the conversation with us.

You have to read what the officer said -- and then you'll understand. You'll see how the police state mentality has begun to infect even the
otherwise solid, decent law officers.

What if the officer gets the order to disarm innocent civilians? You'll hear the officer explain how he hopes that would never happen. Then,
how he would hesitate to carry out the order. And finally, why he would in the end just follow orders and disarm his fellow Americans -- and
that he would kill to do it.

What's the difference between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer? A peace officer serves the citizens by keeping the peace. A law
enforcement officer serves the government by enforcing the law upon the citizens.

Excellent peace officers have told us that they would never carry out unlawful or unconstitutional orders. We believe them, but there are
some officers who make no such promise. Some officers have probably never even considered the possibility. Americans need to know whom
to trust.

Dr. Thompson's article about the anti-gun mentality shows how so many "gun control" advocates are suffering from a mental problem.
Imagine what happens when these victim disarmament folks get political power, and have law enforcement officers at their disposal ...
fellows who just follow orders.

Do most law officers know our Bill of Rights? Many of the older officers do. Yet, because of the sorry state of public education, many or most of
the younger officers do not. Factor that into the equation, and you have to wonder: "what will restrain officers from engaging in police state
tactics?"

Read this conversation between Mr. Mancus and the police officer. Then contact us. If you haven't joined CCOPS yet, then please do so today,
so that we can keep you informed about police state trends in America. With your membership and support, CCOPS can be the national
clearing house for this kind of information. Act now

This is Al Gore's kind of "Law Enforcement Officer"!

Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
Victorian Square
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel.: (707) 829-9050

October 22, 2000

Aaron Zelman
Founder, CCOPS [Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States]
Hartford, WI 53027

RE: A CONVERSATION WITH SEBASTOPOL, CA POLICE OFFICER ROBERT SMITH

Dear CCOPS:

I live in Sebastopol, California, which is approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific coast
line. Sebastopol is a bedroom community of approximately 8,000 people. It is in Sonoma County. Sebastopol and Sonoma County have
repeatedly voted for Clinton, Gore, Feinstein- -champions of more victim disarmament laws. Sonoma County has one major daily newspaper,
The Press-Democrat, which strongly supports more victim disarmament laws.

What follows is true. The date was late 1999. The scene was a beautiful, sunny day, in a neighborhood at Dowd Drive, in Sebastopol,
California.

I was walking my dog when I saw a man, in civilian clothes, walking his dog, coming toward me. When this man and I crossed each other's
path, I started a conversation with this man. The following is a faithful, paraphrased, recreation of this conversation, not an exact quote.

In the dialogue that follows, PM stands for me, Peter Mancus, and RS stands for Robert Smith, who was the other man walking his dog.

This Robert Smith is a white male; approximately 5'9"; approximately 145-150 pounds; approximately 50-55 years old. He is wiry; athletic,
trim looking; he has a flat abdomen; medium brown hair; bushy mustache; a gaunt look; and tight facial skin with deep smile lines
[diagonal lines along nose, above mouth.]

PM: Excuse me. May I please talk to you briefly?
RS: Yes.
PM: Are you a Sebastopol Police Officer?
RS: Yes.
PM: I thought so. I normally see you from the chest up, in blue uniform, behind the steering wheel of a patrol car.
RS: [No comment.]
PM: What's your name?
RS: Bob Smith.
PM: Have a question for you. How do you feel about gun control?
RS: I don't have any problem with most people having guns. It is a mistake to over rely on the police. We cannot be every
where. You have a right to guns. You should get proper training. I own guns. I like to shoot. I can understand how others
would like to keep their guns. I think some people in Sebastopol might be unsafe with guns, but it is their right. They make
me nervous about how they handle their guns.
PM: Have another question for you. If civil authority gave you an order to go house to house to disarm law- abiding citizens
who never misused their firearms, what would you do? And why?
RS: Don't worry about that. I do not think that will ever happen. I've been a cop for 25 years. I do not anticipate receiving that
order before I retire. I do not believe our chief [recently retired Dwight Crandall] would ever give that order. I think the chief
would be extremely reluctant to issue us that order. I just don't think he would do it. I am very confident that I will retire
before I ever get that order.
PM: Thank you for sharing that with me, but please do not avoid the question. The question is [and I repeated it.] If you were
given that order, what would you do? Assume that you were given that order, what would you do? [For several minutes
Officer Smith gave me evasive, non-responsive answers, while I did my best to keep him focused on giving me a direct
answer responsive to my specific question.]
RS: [Eventually] I would carry out the order.
PM: Why?
RS: Because it is an order?
PM: Any other reasons?
RS: Yes. I've been a cop for 25 years. I have worked hard. I have put up with a lot--stress, danger, heartache, etc. I would not
like doing it but I would do it [enforce the order].
PM: What if the home owner citizen [who is otherwise law-abiding] tells you something like this, "Officer. I respect your
title. Thank you for your service. But I am not going to give you my guns. Society and the courts have gone off the deep end.
They are wrong. I have rights. My rights limit your duty, regardless of what society says. I am going to stand up for those
rights. I am not going to let you cross the threshold into my home to confiscate my guns. I have never misused my guns. I
am not responsible for what criminals do with their guns. I am not a criminal. I wish you well. I harbor no animosity
toward you. Please. Just leave in peace, without my guns. Stay on that side of my door, and you are a peace officer. Cross the
threshold to my home to confiscate my guns, and you are a government goon. I will support and obey a peace officer. I will
not support and I will not obey a government goon," what would you do then?
RS: I would not leave. I would enforce the order.
PM: What if the citizen then made it politely and tactfully clear to you that if you want the guns, you will have to use lethal
force because he [or she] is willing to use lethal force to resist? What would you do then?
RS: In that case, the situation is no longer academic. I would not leave without that citizen's guns. I would enforce the order.

PM: Even after the citizen warns you of the personal physical risk you take? Even after the citizen urges you to leave in
peace?
RS: Yes!
PM: Why?
RS: I have received an order. I am a cop. It is my job to enforce the law. This hypothetical citizen you've described is a gun nut.
He is willing to risk his life and his freedom for his damn guns. When it comes down to his guns and my retirement benefit,
I am not going to give my department any excuse for terminating me, for keeping me from retiring and collecting my
retirement benefit. I am not going to let my fellow officers down. I will carry my weight. I will do my job. If necessary, I will
become a vicious bull dog to enforce that order. I want to collect my retirement. I want to keep my job. My wife and I are
counting on me keeping my job. We need the money. I am not going to let my family or my department down.
PM: So, would you be willing to kill that otherwise law-abiding citizen to disarm him? To enforce your order?
RS: Yes!
PM: And, assuming you did that and that you survived that encounter, would you then go to the next house hold to enforce
your order?
RS: Yes!
PM: And what if that citizen told you the same thing as the other one that you just killed? What would you do then?
RS: I would enforce my order.
PM: Including using lethal force to kill that citizen, too?
RS: Yes!
PM: And after you do that, would you then move on to the next house? And the next?
RS: Yes!
PM: Is that how you treat citizens who paid your salary via their taxes for 25 years? Would you really do this? Shift after
shift until Sebastopol was a gun free zone?
RS: Hey! Do not get upset with me. I would just be doing my job. If anyone has a problem with me doing my job, they should
obey my command to surrender their guns to me and then take it up with a judge. They have a legal duty to obey my order. If
they threaten me with lethal force, I will take care of myself, which will be bad for whomever resisted my order.
PM: Have you ever heard of the "Nuremberg Principle"?
RS: Yes.
PM: Do you know what that principle is?
RS: No.
PM: Have you ever received any training about the "Nuremberg Principle"?
RS: No.
PM: So you would just continue going from house to house, shift after shift, day after day, enforcing that order, killing
everyone who refused to surrender their guns?
RS: Do not get upset with me. I am just a small cog in a big piece of machinery. If the citizens want to stay alive, they simply
just have to surrender their guns, as ordered.
PM: Is there any order you would not enforce to keep your retirement benefit? To protect your income?
RS: I do not want to continue this conversation. [Officer Smith then walked away.]

Almost a year after this exchange with Officer Smith, I am still disturbed. The implications of this exchange are alarming. I did not like
how quickly Officer Smith was willing to reduce me, and people like me, to gun nut status. I do not like Officer Smith's mind set that his
retirement benefits are more important than the rights and lives of gun nuts.

Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith exists. I did not make him up. It is a mere coincidence that his last name is Smith. I described him
with particularity on purpose. Good citizens need to know what Officer Robert Smith told me, and they need to know what he looks like so
they will have a fighting chance to stay alive and remain free.

Peter J. Mancus

A Conversation With Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith © Peter J. Mancus 2000


Have you joined CCOPS yet? Read our Mission Statement and Join

[ You Are Here: CCOPS Home > Cops Against CCOPS ]

© 2000 CCOPS < webmaster@ccops.org >
 
Attorney backs officer into a corner. Officer may have realized that he is speaking for publication. What he said he would do and what he would, in reality, do may well be diametrically opposed. The officer may have been covering his six.

Or the officer may well be the SS type portrayed. No way to tell from this.

The description and naming of the officer was in extremely bad taste at best and could result in harm to the officer or others as a result.

I think Mancus could have handled this a lot better.

Sam
 
Granted, the questions were hypothetical, but, FWIW, I believe 99% of law officers would respond the same way and would act the same way.

Note that the Gestapo was the Nazi equivalent, not of the KKK or the Aryan Nation, but of the FBI. They had the same mission statement: To protect the country against foreigh espionage, and against sabotage and subversion, foreign or domestic.

Jim
 
Mancus is an attorney and you guys believe him?? Incredible, biased media is biased media whether pro or anti-gun.

I am not saying that there are leo's that feel that way, I just doubt the credibility of the story, the source, whether this conversation actually happened... well you get the picture.

Fury
 
Folks, does not matter if the story is true or not. If you have studied our founding you will find many references to the debate about standing armies being dangerous to our liberty. The principle debated goes like this. Those whose paychecks come from the government owe their loyalty to that government. Those who do not receive pay to enforce the laws i.e.… the militia as originally intended, owe their loyalty to their local community, friends and family. This is the whole reason for our founding fathers fear of a standing army and why they preferred a militia made up of private citizens, only called up at times of need. Remember at the time of our founding, there were no police officers. Law enforcement was the duty of each and every citizen. They even had fines for those who looked the other way during the commission of a crime. The concept of full time police officers did not come into being until the 1840’s. Even at that time (when they first started), the citizens feared them the same as a standing army so much that the law forbade them from carrying arms

Sure, most of our officers today are not like this person as portrayed. Most are honest hard working individuals who would not follow out such an order. The problem arises when the powers that be, let those officers go who refuse to follow orders and replace them with those who will. For the paycheck there are plenty of others out there who will obey such an order.

This principal, which has been show by history to be true, is the reason why it is the people from whom the militia is to be drawn, are the ones that have the right to keep and bear arms. It is also the reason why the 2nd says shall not be infringed. The 2nd was to afford the people a last means of defense against all enemies, including our own government should it ever turn to tyranny. How can the government regulate arms if those arms are meant to afford us protection from this government? Not logical. Would be the same as giving the fox the keys to the chicken coup.

I’ll shut up here before I get myself into trouble.
 
About eight months ago while first shopping for a lawyer in my case against my Sheriff, I spent two hours in Peter Mancus's office talking to him.

Peter is honest, and absolutely committed to RKBA, moreso than ANY other individual I've ever met myself included.

He told me this same story, and that was not long after it had happened.

Clayton Cramer knows him too, he'll vouch for the man's integrity.

This conversation is real.

Was publishing the cop's name in bad taste? I don't think so - he said it, voluntarily.

Hell, I once had an even more surreal conversation with a uniformed cop in Richmond, CA. See, Richmond is the most crime-ridden town in the county and one of the top hell-holes in the state. This officer was white; the town is 45% black, 35% Hispanic, the rest mixed. He told me that if CCW permits were being issued by the Chief on a fair and widespread basis, half the cops on the force would walk off the job - YET knowing what he knows of the town, if he wasn't a cop, he'd pack a gun daily despite no permit.

That's not a "theoretical state of war between cops and civilians" as Peter was discussing - in Richmond, there's an ACTUAL state of horrific distrust between law enforcement and the citizenry.

And it's doing unending damage to public safety.

Jim
 
This conversation with the cop is the very reason that many people distrust and fear cops.

No police officer is compelled to enforce any order in violation of the US Constitution.

The problem is that many cops do not realize this.
Many of the younger cops cant even SPELL Constitution...never mind understand it.

That is the problem. Most of them will be caught in the crossfire and they will die without realizing why. They have been brainwashed to the point of "just following orders". It is a sorry situation , but they are being trained to obey without thinking. In our society of no absolutes, no distinction between right or wrong, what can one expect ?

Any body that would die for their guns is a "gun nut". That cop is an uneducated pawn of the state as many are.

But also remember...many are not. Many will not go house to house searching for guns and illegally confinscating them.

The cops that do will not last long and they least they'll have to worry about is collecting retirement.
Of course...this is just my humble opinion.
 
I have exchanged e-mails with JPFO and Mancus, and talked by phone with Officer Smith. I will append a recent e-mail that addresses many of the points brought up in this string:

Tom, I appreciate your comments, but have a very different view of my LE career. I am familiar with the limitations of the written word, so please forgive me if I read any of your points wrong. Also, my statements on my own experiences are not intended to refute yours, or imply that anything you say is wrong. Hell, they are your experiences and your life.



At no time did I ever look at myself as being “armed and dangerous”. That is not a factor that I even considered when contemplating a career in LE, it was not part of my training, and it was not an attitude that prevailed during my employment. I do remember that it was the claim of self-proclaimed citizen watchdog committees, and the hippies in the 60’s that cops were “armed and dangerous”. It became apparent early in my career that criminal types were quick to fight, and emotional situations led citizens from all walks of life to rash and unpredictable actions. It would be amazing to most just how often a policeman is required to defend himself or a citizen with physical force. As a result, I did prepare and train myself for those dangerous situations, but never once considered myself armed and dangerous. It is probably a matter of semantics, but I look at it as an attitude. I am not a fighter, but did and will fight when threatened.



I talked with Officer Smith by phone. He told me that he read the conversation attributed to him posted on the web, and it was not true. Granted, we have a he-said/she-said situation. Let’s forget that he is a 25-yr cop and one of us, and just look at the possible motive. JPFO promotes the comparison of American law enforcement with Hitler’s Gestapo. Mr. Mancus’ letter includes, “I think Smith is confused and inadequately trained. I am disgusted that a state as allegedly advance and progressive and liberal and pro-humanity as California claims to be does not make official training in the Nuremberg Principle part of its required curriculum for all peace officers.” Mancus went to the city council to complain about Officer Smith’s lack of knowledge of the Nuremberg Principles. Now JPFO suggests that as part of a CCOPS effort, all police officers should be trained in the Nuremberg Principles. It is quite a coincidence that they found a cop that said exactly the right words to suit their agenda.



They are comparing city cops to Nazi Gestapo, Tom. They are suggesting that city cops are capable of genocide. They are comparing the work of a city cop to the atrocities of The Holocaust! The introduction to the CCOPS website tells citizens that THE POLICEMEN WILL SOON COME TO KILL YOU.



They are inciting 2AM activists to hate cops. Nothing directed at Janet Reno, or the BATF. In their frustration, they too take the easy route of just directing the blame at all cops. Any cop will do if it serves the purpose of generating publicity and attention to their website. Lawyers, sitting in their offices writing this trash. We know that Marcus was rebuffed by his city council. I doubt very much that anyone from the JPFO office has made a concerted effort to promote the training of the Nuremberg Principles at their city councils.



I disagree very much with your last paragraph re how police are viewed. In my experience, there has always been an element that shares the fears you describe. The criminal element, of course. Any element, radical or otherwise, that is proposing changes in government realizes that the more active they get, the closer to that legal line. They then begin to “fear” prosecution and target the police as the enemy. Actually, as with gun owners, it is “the system” that they object to, but the uniform is readily visible and an easy target. It was never my experience that the community, in general, felt the way you describe.



JPFO has an agenda that appears very unfriendly to law enforcement. JPFO is using cops as the scapegoat, Tom. They are branding us the enemy. We have a lying, whore mongering president, an Attorney General with questionable motives, and federal agencies that appear to run amuck. And JPFO wants city cops compared to the Nazi Gestapo capable of genocide.



I volunteered to wear a silver star, Tom, and I am very proud of my service and the contributions of law enforcement to a very complicated society. I was very proud to be part of an organization whose job was to protect the citizens, 24-7, while they went about their job, usually, totally unaware of the LEO efforts if it did not affect them, personally. I am fully aware of the atrocities being committed around the world this very day, but have faith and confidence enough in our system, the one so many love to hate, that I am confident that Americans, led by men and women of law enforcement and our proud military, will not let us go down the road of despair. There is too much good work to do, and so many lawful and worthwhile efforts provided in our society. It is a sham to direct so much animosity towards local police.



Is it ironic that with all the complications and troubles in our society, some would find it a simple solution to just demonize a segment of that society because of the Silver Star they wear?



Leroy



===================================

The Second Amendment Police Department (in CyberSpace)
www.2ampd.net

To Protect & Serve the Individual Rights of All Citizens!






[This message has been edited by Leroy Pyle (edited November 04, 2000).]
 
If officer Smith did not say those thing alleged then why didn't he correct them? Let him tell us what he would do under the circumstances. I think Watchman said it well: "This conversation with the cop is the very reason that many people distrust and fear cops. No police officer is compelled to enforce any order in violation of the US Constitution." Most of the officers I know would not obey such an order, but I know some that would just because "it is my job." I personally believe Peter J. Mancus. I don't think such reports demonize those who wear the star. I do think they point out a danger to our nation from those who put job security and their own desire for authority ahead of the Constitution. We have some of those - in fact too many. Jerry
 
Officer Smith was not aware of Mancus's intent to pursue him until Mancus took his complaint to the city.

You can believe either, or you can make up your own story and post it on the web. You can view Mancus's e-mail to me for a little insight into the man:

Dear Mr. Pyle:

I am the author of the letter about Sebastopol Police Officer Robert
Smith. I am also an ex-Deputy District Attorney. I am also a skilled trial
lawyer. What I attributed to Officer Smith is a fair, accurate and faithful
attribution, although not an exact quote.
I verbally reported what Officer Smith said to me to others within 24-48
hours and I kept doing so for days, while everything was fresh in my mind.
While everything was still fresh in my mind I committed it to writing on the
computer.
On June 8, 2000, I officially complained about this in writing to his
chief and the local city council and city manager. I have also complained
about it publicly at two official city council meetings. I also complained
about it face to face to the city manager and the police chief in a two hour
meeting.
I stress this point: from June 8, 2000 to date, no one has told me that
Officer Smith claims that the conversation did not happen, that it is
inaccurate, that it is an unfair attribution, that I took anything out of
context, etc. Officer Smith, to his credit, has had five months to try to
weasel out of this attribution by denying it and/or calling me a liar, etc.,
but, as far as I know, he has conceded to his chief, the city council and the
city manager that what I attributed to him is reasonably accurate and fair. I
do not have personal knowledge of this. This is just an assumption on my part
because no one has told me that Smith disputes what I attribute to him.
Furthermore, as you might know, there is an evidentiary rule called
"adoptive admission." Per this rule, if you know someone has attributed
something to you, and you have had reasonable opportunity to communicate a
denial or objection, etc., and you fail to do so within a reasonable time,
one can logically and reasonably draw a fair inference that you consent to
and adopt the attribution as being fair, reasonable and accurate. I submit
that this applies to Officer Smith.
Furthermore, I did my best in what I wrote to be fair and accurate. I
reported in the beginning the good things that he said, e.g., he did not
expect to get the order and he would not want to carry it out. To my credit,
I also made it clear that what I reported was a paraphrase, not an exact
quote. I do not claim to have a tape recorder memory. I do claim, however, to
have a good memory. On that day, I was well rested, in full control of my
senses, and I was extremely attentive to what Officer Smith said. I would
also be willing to say the same thing under penalty of perjury. Why? Because
what I said in the letter and what I said here is true. It was not a set up.
Perhaps I did get lucky. I also persisted with my questioning.
I did not tell Smith I was an attorney. I was not obligated to do so. I
did not promise to keep our conversation private and off record. I was not
obligated to do so. I think Smith is confused and inadequately trained. I
am disgusted that a state as allegedly advance and progressive and liberal
and pro-humanity as California claims to be does not make official training
in the Nuremberg Principle part of its required curriculum for all peace
officers. I wrote that letter and shared it with Aaron to try to be a force
for good, not to do a hatchet job on Officer Smith or law enforcement.
I hope Officer Smith, and all cops, have learned from this. I have also
lobbied the local police chief, city manager and city council to make
mandatory training in the Nuremberg Principle part of the training
curriculum, and I have even supplied an authoritative statement on what that
principle is. [It is really in 7 sub-parts, not just one principle.]
I submit that if I were just out to do a hatchet job on Officer Smith I
would not press this issue and follow through by going to city council
meetings and conferring with the city manager and police chief, etc. I have
also told the local officials that I think it would be inappropriate to
punish, demote or discipline Smith in any way. I have also said he has a
right to his opinion and to express it, but the council should condemn his
sentiments because, reformulated, what he really said is this: he is willing
to participate in genocide. I have told the city council I do not want arms
confiscation and/or genocide in Sebastopol, and that I will do my utmost best
to prevent either from occurring. To date, this council has stone walled me
and remained mute on these issues. I have warned this council that to the
extent they do not condemn Smith's mind set, they condone it, which
facilitates genocide.
I do not think Smith is "bad." I think he is confused, not fully trained
well, selfish, a potentially dangerous loose canon and somewhat two face [for
25 years he acted the role of public servant and protector but to keep his
retirement benefits he will willing to execute those who defy his
unconstitutional orders, should they be issued to him.]
I hope Smith lives long enough to collect his retirement--on the
condition that he functions as a faithful public servant, a peace officer,
not a government goon who will enforce anything. I appreciate his service of
25 years. I simply do not want him to carry out the anticipated arms
confiscation order. I do not want to be the one who sends him to the morgue,
and I do not want him to send me or anyone else who stands up for their
rights to the morgue. I want good cops and good citizens to unite and stand
firm against the gun prohibitionists, low grade tyrant wannabe's before they
become political T-rex monsters.
When given the arms confiscation order, I want good cops to arrest the
SOBs who issued them the unconstitutional order or, in the alternative, stand
down so good citizens can take care of those SOBs. I have also told officers
this is what they should do and they should also wear lots of hunters orange
and put RTKBA [Right To Keep And Bear Arms] on their patrol vehicles to
distinguish themselves from arms confiscation cops so Patriots will hopefully
give the ones with hunters orange and RTKBA a free pass, as long as that pass
is not abused.
You are entitled to your opinion about my letter but that is all it
is--your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. Opinions are like ass holes:
everybody has one. No disrespect intended by my graphic image. I simply want
to drive home the point that your opinion about me and my letter is only your
opinion.
Despite your vast experience and your professed support for the Second
Amendment, I think your reaction is not well grounded in fact or logic.
I hope this clears up things and sets them straight for you. I hope you
will experience this to be truthful. I also hope you will patch up things
with Aaron Zelman. I experience him to be a wonderful human being and a
terrific community/national asset. [No, Aaron did not slip me a few bucks to
say that.]
If you care to, feel free to post this to your web page. You might want
to post my letter, your critical remarks and this letter to your web page in
consecutive order, and perhaps your reply to this reply from me. [Aaron
E-mailed me your remarks to him, which is why I am e-mailing you, for
your--and everyone's benefit.]
I have never tried to kill a human being. I hope I die before I kill
anyone or try to kill anyone. On the other hand, if a government goon
persists in trying to defang me, I hope I have the courage and the ability to
resist, successfully, and if that resistance converts a government goon to
maggot meat, so be it.
Smith is apparently willing to go MFFU: Me First; F you,
meaning his retirement benefit comes before my liberty. In that case, my
liberty comes before his retirement benefits. Two can play MFFU. When that
happens, life becomes dicey. The idea of killing Smith makes me puke. The
idea of him defanging me when I have done nothing wrong, makes me puke even
more. I loathe Government's damn, big, heavy boot on my neck. It gets bigger
and heavier all the time. I demand that I am treated as a citizen . I will
not allow myself to be reduced to a subject, a piss ant, landfill, smoke,
bullet stop, lamp shade, slave labor or medical experiment. Government's
contempt for armed citizens now is nearly insufferable. Should Government
achieve arms confiscation, Government would degenerate into an ugly,
self-serving gang. The price of a Constitutional government is honoring all
constitutional bright lines, such as "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is a clear, bright, bright line to
me. Any person in uniform who fails to heed that line does so at his or her
peril.
The idea of killing a normal human being is repulsive. Simultaneously,
however, the idea of killing a tyrant, a tyrant wannabes, a tyrant's
apologists and/or a tyrant's terrorist, is deeply satisfying. I like that
idea. I like the idea of being the rescuer, the knight on the white horse,
who saves the oppressed and the vulnerable. I would have no problem with
holding down the trigger that melts 10,000 barrels if that is what it takes
to get rid of the Freedom Haters and the Rights Destroyers. I do not mean to
be corny nor elitist, but I believe I am one of the Founding Fathers'
spiritual heirs. I dig Liberty. Liberty is my most favorite word in the
English language. Nothing else comes close.
With kindest regards,
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law




[This message has been edited by Leroy Pyle (edited November 04, 2000).]
 
Leroy: In one of your above posts you scold CCOPS for implying that "... city cops are coming to kill us..." then a sentance or two later suggest they should turn their attention instead towards Janet Reno and the BATF.

We are well aware of the abuses brought to us by Jan and her stormtroopers. What we are not expecting to see is city cops gladly jumping in, and apparently enjoying the ride!! It's happening and I don't think CCOPS is wrong to blow the whistle or bring it to light.

I posed the question on a thread in General and didn't really get any takers... (Probably to the relief of many) a moderator came in and rambled on until that sweet, sweet 100k mark, then axed it.

Another personal experience of mine (and I've got a million of 'em) that helps me believe Paul's story:
A few years back I wished to carry a weapon for personal protection. In my foolishness (I've been since enlightened) I believed the County Sherrif had the authority to grant me this "privilege". My wife wasn't working at the time so I asked her to go down to the station to pick up my permission package. Well I guess the way she asked, everyone in the room assumed she meant she wanted it for herself (it doesn't really make any difference to the story whether she did or not). They all looked at her like she had just blown a big fart or something! Then several of them started into her in real condescending tones about "What do you want that for? You don't want that!"
I don't know... I guess I'm just lucky that I always run into those "rare exceptions"... I should probably buy a lottery ticket.
 
Jordan,

Obviously, JPFO feels the need to tell readers that policemen are coming to kill them because there is, like yourself, an audience that eats that kind of rhetoric up.

I personally believe such charges to be no different than the Sarah Bradys of the world who would charge all firearms owners with the crimes of the few misfits that abuse their right to firearms ownership with atrocious criminal acts.

We all gotta be somewhere, I guess.

I am curious to know if you agree with one of their other introductory statements demanding thet LEOs be peace officers rather than enforcement officers. They apparently don't want cops enforcing the laws. It is right above their plea for donations.

How does that sit with you?

Thanx,
Leroy
 
Leroy,
Out of curosity, what percentage of the LEO that you know would seek to enforce a gun confiscation law? What about laws that they believed to be contrary to the Constitution? If you don't mind, would you enforce such laws? Thanks, Jerry
 
Leroy: Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.. I had a gun show to attend!

Regarding your question of enforcement: I think CCOPS sums it up best with their definition of a "peace" officer vs. a "law enforcemtent" officer... one works for the citizens to protect and serve, the other works as the strong arm of the gov't enforcing the will of gov't on the citizens.
Sadly I feel many of the laws that LEO's busy themselves enforcing are just that.. the will of the gov't on the people.

I spend a lot of time thinking outside of the box about laws and their enforcement, lack thereof, end results, etc.

We could probably put victimless crimes and crimes aimed only at revenue raising on the chopping block and cut police workload by two thirds at least.

ALL: Why are you still asking if local cops would participate in these actions? We know they will because on any given day, they do. On the shirt-tails of their Fed buddies.
 
The bottom line is, those police who refuse to enforce a mass confiscation order or other unConstitutional law (or get the "blue flu," an option I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet) will not be the ones confronting "gun nuts." We don't have to fear them, and they don't have to fear us.

I am more than a little concerned that the esteemed Mr. Pyle (and I mean that sincerely) seems to want us to believe that virtually NO cop would obey a general confiscation order; or that he doesn't want armed civilians to even think about the possibility of this happening.

Personally, I really, really hope that a general confiscation order would collapse in a general mutiny, or sick-out, or such like. I don't want to die until I'm past 90, and I don't want to shoot at LEOs even if I don't die as a consequence.

--The Beez
 
Jerry,

The problem with your question is the matter of perspective.

If I told you I was totally fed up with all this anti-gun BS and was ready to draw the line, had my sandbags set up and a piece of chalk, and I was ready to take out government goons. What percentage of your friends in the gun club or at the range are ready, right now, to show up and man the barricades. Not just talk, mind you, but bring ammo and toss out a challenge to come and get them! ****in' molon labe, man!

So where are your people? What percentage of your people would look at you like you're crazy, because YOU may be ready to shoot it out, but they had other plans.

That's the reaction when I ask cops if they are ready for mass confiscation. Well, really, I don't ask many unless I know them well, because others would look at me like I was crazy. Like your friends.

I hope you understand what I mean. You guys are talking among your paranoid selves, with everyone nodding their heads in agreement, just eating this up.

I look at the possibility of mass confiscation like I do black helicopters and the NWO.

No offense intended, but give a little thought to what is intended by the label, "sheeple". I do not intend this to be personal, since I have not the faintest idea who you are. Instead, I am responding to that generic question that seems to be a favorite among 2AM activists.

Especially with the cop-baiting that JPFO is promoting!

Leroy
 
Jerry,

I forgot to address the second most popular question I hear. Would I arrest for unconstitutional offenses.

Why does it always come down to dope? I often wonder how many claim to be civil libertarians just to legalize dope?

If you are talking about the commonly referred to "victimless crimes" take a look at an article that explains my views at http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/pyle/its_the_GUNS-stupid.htm.

Otherwise, if you would care to list the laws that you deem unconstitutional, let's go at it. I don't mean just the ones you have heard someone else write about. I would expect more of you. I would expect you to know the laws of your state, especially if you are that concerned. Penal code, civil code, health & safety code, alcoholic beverage control, etc.

I mean let's take a look at them all and you tell me which ones you think are unconstitutional.

Or are you just parroting this question because you heard it elsewhere and it sounds clever?

Leroy
 
Jordon,

No need to apologize for establishing good priorities. Gun shows should always be high on the list ! :-)

I'll have to admit that it does appear that you're thinking is out of the box.

Maybe you can explain to me what JPFO, and you apparently, mean when they say that a law enforcement officer that enforces the law is "bad". Or maybe I am reading it wrong. In their CCOPS introduction, they write, "What's the difference between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer? A peace officer serves the citizens by keeping the peace. A law enforcement officer serves the government by enforcing the law upon the citizens."

Pardon me? Enforcing the robbery laws "upon the citizens" is wrong? How about rape" And do you think JPFO implies that all laws are government inspired with no input from citizens?

Or is it just about dope, again?


Leroy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top