From: J. Horn <crowtalk@t...>
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 11:30am
Subject: CCOPS and JPFO anti-cop propaganda via alleged Sebastopol, Calif Police Officer
============
This is a long post, but it describes a developing police hazard that is
taking shape right now in this country.
This CCOPS is an organization that is part of, or works directly hand in
hand with JPFO, or Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. What
follows is a piece of anti-police propaganda that only the most naive
and inexperienced in life would believe, but there are a lot of those
kinds of people so this can be a problem.
These folks are allegedly pro Constitution but in frustration with the
laws that are being passed restricting and controlling, and in some
cases, denying gun ownership, they are focusing on local police, the
non-issue
of door to door firearms confiscation, and now starting the
dehumanization of uniform police so they can turn them into random
targets for anarchists.
JPFO and CCOPS contacted LE officers at the www.2ampd.net site and
circulated a questionnaire re:
Gun Control issues, primarily dwelling on the issues of confiscation and
officer knowledge of and compliance with the Constitution. They were
told that Confiscation is a logistic impossibility even if you could get
the majority of local cops to do it as there are 400,000,000 firearms in
83,000,000 homes (source: BATF)
In this article below, they make no reference to our replies, our facts
and figures. They ignored our statements that cops will not obey
unconstitutional or illegal orders. They seem to prefer that we not
exist so they may pursue the agenda of fear, dehumanization and
targeting. They prefer to print an interview with one
so-called cop in a magic interview. In 40 years of knowing cops, I never
met one that thought or talked this
way in a radio car or locker room, let alone to a stranger and
citizen...pulleese.
I have resigned from JPFO and sent them a letter stating in the
strongest possible terms that while we may support the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, any propaganda program from any right wing RKBA
faction will be met with truth and counter-information. That CCOPS and
JPFO would initiate a propaganda program against those who enforce the
law, and not those who write and pass the laws demonstrates incredible
ignorance or a pathological desire for anarchy.
This is not the NRA, which is and has always been pro-police and has
conducted thousands of police training and equipment classes and
seminars. This is now apparently the extreme right wing
of the RKBA movement, and it concerns me, because I'm a strong RKBA
supporter, but this is a clear warning of where these people's mindset
and paranoia are leading. This has nothing to do with militia, this is
propaganda designed to turn the citizenry, already pissed off, against
cops over a non issue:
Firearms confiscation. Why focus on a non issue to stir and anger and
frighten people? Why do they choose to ignore legislators as a root
cause as well as the fact that THEY voted for the clowns that passed the
laws they don't like?? Talk about denial of responsibility...
Because they don't want to solve the issues, they want anarchy and want
to focus on the police because the police are the leading and visible
edge of government, and like teenagers angry at Dad for restricting
their "fun", they blame the police for their problems and frustrations,
not themselves. And recently, ad hoc patriots like these have referred
to police as JBTs, nazis and advocate armed force against people simply
wearing a uniform. I don't know where or when these wackos infiltrated
the RKBA movement, but these pathologies do not have a history of
improving with time.
If any of my esteemed colleagues on this list believe that this
conversation below as reported by a lawyer in Calif. actually took
place, I have a bridge in Arizona that I'd be happy to sell. It's not
even particularly good propaganda, but they will improve in time. Josef
Goebbels got very good over time. Notice how good this attorney is with
recall, no recorder or note taking. Bogus.
Joe Horn
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Ret.
>Reply-To: libertyics@egroups.com
>Subject: [libertyics] Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
>eagle.prod.itd.earthlink.net id SAA18940
>
>Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States
>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"!
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
><http://www.ccops.org/copsagainstccops.html>
>--
>
>
>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
>
------------------
When women are disarmed, a rapist will never hear - Stop or I'll shoot!
Armed Citizens SAVE Lives!
<A HREF="http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage
Gun" TARGET=_blank>http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage
Gun</A> Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum
est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 11:30am
Subject: CCOPS and JPFO anti-cop propaganda via alleged Sebastopol, Calif Police Officer
============
This is a long post, but it describes a developing police hazard that is
taking shape right now in this country.
This CCOPS is an organization that is part of, or works directly hand in
hand with JPFO, or Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership. What
follows is a piece of anti-police propaganda that only the most naive
and inexperienced in life would believe, but there are a lot of those
kinds of people so this can be a problem.
These folks are allegedly pro Constitution but in frustration with the
laws that are being passed restricting and controlling, and in some
cases, denying gun ownership, they are focusing on local police, the
non-issue
of door to door firearms confiscation, and now starting the
dehumanization of uniform police so they can turn them into random
targets for anarchists.
JPFO and CCOPS contacted LE officers at the www.2ampd.net site and
circulated a questionnaire re:
Gun Control issues, primarily dwelling on the issues of confiscation and
officer knowledge of and compliance with the Constitution. They were
told that Confiscation is a logistic impossibility even if you could get
the majority of local cops to do it as there are 400,000,000 firearms in
83,000,000 homes (source: BATF)
In this article below, they make no reference to our replies, our facts
and figures. They ignored our statements that cops will not obey
unconstitutional or illegal orders. They seem to prefer that we not
exist so they may pursue the agenda of fear, dehumanization and
targeting. They prefer to print an interview with one
so-called cop in a magic interview. In 40 years of knowing cops, I never
met one that thought or talked this
way in a radio car or locker room, let alone to a stranger and
citizen...pulleese.
I have resigned from JPFO and sent them a letter stating in the
strongest possible terms that while we may support the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, any propaganda program from any right wing RKBA
faction will be met with truth and counter-information. That CCOPS and
JPFO would initiate a propaganda program against those who enforce the
law, and not those who write and pass the laws demonstrates incredible
ignorance or a pathological desire for anarchy.
This is not the NRA, which is and has always been pro-police and has
conducted thousands of police training and equipment classes and
seminars. This is now apparently the extreme right wing
of the RKBA movement, and it concerns me, because I'm a strong RKBA
supporter, but this is a clear warning of where these people's mindset
and paranoia are leading. This has nothing to do with militia, this is
propaganda designed to turn the citizenry, already pissed off, against
cops over a non issue:
Firearms confiscation. Why focus on a non issue to stir and anger and
frighten people? Why do they choose to ignore legislators as a root
cause as well as the fact that THEY voted for the clowns that passed the
laws they don't like?? Talk about denial of responsibility...
Because they don't want to solve the issues, they want anarchy and want
to focus on the police because the police are the leading and visible
edge of government, and like teenagers angry at Dad for restricting
their "fun", they blame the police for their problems and frustrations,
not themselves. And recently, ad hoc patriots like these have referred
to police as JBTs, nazis and advocate armed force against people simply
wearing a uniform. I don't know where or when these wackos infiltrated
the RKBA movement, but these pathologies do not have a history of
improving with time.
If any of my esteemed colleagues on this list believe that this
conversation below as reported by a lawyer in Calif. actually took
place, I have a bridge in Arizona that I'd be happy to sell. It's not
even particularly good propaganda, but they will improve in time. Josef
Goebbels got very good over time. Notice how good this attorney is with
recall, no recorder or note taking. Bogus.
Joe Horn
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Ret.
>Reply-To: libertyics@egroups.com
>Subject: [libertyics] Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
>eagle.prod.itd.earthlink.net id SAA18940
>
>Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States
>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"!
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
><http://www.ccops.org/copsagainstccops.html>
>--
>
>
>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
>
------------------
When women are disarmed, a rapist will never hear - Stop or I'll shoot!
Armed Citizens SAVE Lives!
<A HREF="http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage
Gun" TARGET=_blank>http://www.wagc.com
http://sites.netscape.net/wagcga/homepage
Gun</A> Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum
est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
Biased media is biased media whether pro or anti-gun.
