"Dear Police Officer" an anon article - forwarded

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope it made you better, sensop.
wink.gif


dz, beats me. I got a letter w/link, went there & copied the sucker. Maybe COA pulled it from theirs.

The post does mention that "he's" way in favor of the good guys and notso for the "bad guys."
 
Perhaps this observation will be the segue from the JBT thread.

Many, many Americans are just throwing away their census forms. Some are mailing them back blank, with a $100 check enclosed for the fine. (Here in Wisconsin, only 27% have been mailed in, compared to 77% ten years ago)

Yesterday, the mayor of Miami said that he would not allow his police force to be used
in the Elian Gonzales mess, and he suggested that the reaction to the federal government
taking Elian could be violent. And he would put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Clinton and Reno.

Could it be that a substantial portion of the population is fed up with an overreaching government, and is on the verge of mass civil disobedience?

Notice I said "civil."

Dick
 
Segue away ...

And who were those Nevada-guys?! 4K shovel protest over Fed intrusions ...

I lived in Miami (& south) for ten years, my uncle's Cubano. The Cubans took over Miami, using our own system of goverment (they actually participated - wotta concept!) and the city and county. I do believe that if the Feds are a'comin' to Miami for that boy, they better pack a lunch
 
It should've stopped after the first 4 paragraphs or so... the rambling, repeatative and (for most gun owners) empty rhetoric towards the end ruins it.
I was seriously considering printing out and posting the letter in the locker room at the PD until it became caustic and silly.


------------------
-Essayons
 
I know, Rob, kinda "went there" for me as well.

Copy/cut & paste (hey, creative license ;)) & stick it up anyway.

Just because some of it's caustic doesn't mean that some of of it isn't.
 
Rob: there is nothing about that letter that a good (smart) editor couldn't fix. Keep the meat, trim the angry rhetoric, hyperbole, and melodrama.

In reading this, as people wonder whether LEO's and military would support a clearly unconstitutional seizure of arms, I'm reminded of Tienanmen Square. The Chinese rulers trucked in troops from remote regions of the country, who had no personal ties to the community in Beijing (BATF in Waco?). In other words, they were willing to follow orders, up to and including taking lives, because the people meant little to them, compared to their jobs and power.

I've seen posted a questionnaire allegedly circulated to US military troops, which asked, among other questions, whether they would follow orders and conduct house to house searches to disarm Americans. One can only hope that if it comes down to civil disobedience, it will be on both sides of the line.

I also find it (perversely) amusing the idea that because we live in arguably the most free country in the world, and have a remarkable constitution, that we as a people and country are immune to the darker impulses and forces of human nature which make life so unpleasant elsewhere. Of course, the answer is no.... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is written on parchment, not in our genetic code.

Support your pro-constitution, pro-RKBA law enforcement officers. They are us. IMO

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited April 07, 2000).]
 
Well, here's the link to Port Huron Statement. I am slightly underwhelmed by it, although it forecasts parts of the following 30 years accurately at times..

http://ppl.nhmccd.edu/~craigl/primary_folder/29.c.01.Port_Huron.html

THE PORT HURON STATEMENT, 1962: Tom Hayden wrote the Port Huron Statement in 1962 while a student at The University of Wisconsin. This document was the founding statement of Students for a Democratic Society. The writer voices concern that the majority of people in the United States choose to ignore global problems such as revolution, overpopulation, and war. Hayden believes that these issues will become America's problems if left unresolved. Hayden also believes that students must seek to research and understand the world at large. They should take direct action and become involved in the making of history, rather than purely reading about what is past.


[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited April 06, 2000).]
 
… long version appended for e-mail recipients …. See continuing thread at:
http://www.eaglesup.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000084.html

I am just heartsick over some events that happened this past week ... no, I don't think I'm going to go into the whole story. It may be required to be brought up sometime in the future.

I’ve taken awhile writing this - quite a few starts and stops …. wishing to convey certain thoughts to the members of TRT and perhaps more importantly, to our listening members of the law enforcement community - reasonably & explain my position to them as much as any.

I have had a few phone conversations with some local LEOs (Law Enforcement Officer for the uninitiate)/mostly local SWAT in the past coupla days, regarding the nature of personal privacy concerns.

At least one LEO had (obviously) been in this site (no question that we are monitored for their "intel") and mentioned that we had some pretty radical info posts here - one of which being (almost certainly) this Dear Officer post as he referenced the "100 million ... " and that it insinuated the killing of police.

After doing the search, I believe this to be the post which is unsettling.

I couldn't respond properly at the time - I did tell him that if I found the post to actually insinuate the killing of LEOs, I would delete the post.

Now that I know what the post is, and have reread it, I won't delete it.

Explanations are required.

For one thing, this same post has been made on several other sites and been forwarded, through e-mail, to several thousands already, if not millions. Deleting the post here would serve to little purpose. It would censure an item (to no point), I personally do not find to be offensive - except for reasons below.

What I do find offensive is that we have come to such a state of affairs in this country that someone (who appears by all accounts to be quite an intelligent, reasoned person with a good command of the vernacular) felt that this letter need be written in the first place. I see this letter as mainly a cry to please, please! stop this nonsense before it goes way too far. I suspect that if you are an LEO and don’t read exactly what is stated, rather than allow your own feelings to color what you thought you read, you would be offended. One should read for content rather than presuppose what you think is written.

In another thread, I made mention that two occurrences need be to have the state in which we live; the politicians who pass such laws and the enforcement of same. Many of these laws are felt to be clearly unconstitutional by many, and we take huge offence to same. That they are passed is an affront. That they are enforced is an equal affront - perhaps moreso.

Clearly, there are those who commit crimes against others. As clear to me, those who do commit offenses against their fellow citizens should be investigated and punished according to certain laws.

However, in our time, many "new offenses" have been created which are not. Just because someone takes offense does not mean that we should have a new law to further control another’s behavior or what they may possess.

Too and specifically, the laws surrounding the control of certain items, is felt by many, many individuals to be the attempted control of the owners rather than the items themselves. We law-abiding citizens hugely resent this. And rightfully so.

Among our many cherished rights is that of privacy. So much so that our Bill of Rights clearly has, at the least, two Amendments defining such. I would expect my privacy to be honored as much within my own community as it would be in the law enforcement community. The sharing of private information on a law-abiding citizen goes beyond the pale. In the law enforcement community this private information is called intel and is shared at will without any thought whatsoever that anyone, perhaps, might be doing something wrong; or that one would take offence. That the "right or wrong" question apparently never crossed anyone’s mind in the LEO community is stunning to me. I am apparently, extremely naïve.

Back to topic.

The Dear Officer letter states that the author never wishes to cause any harm to any law enforcement officer. It states emphatically that he would assist LEOs at every turn, that we, the law-abiding (and staunch supporters of LEOs) are the very fabric of this society - the very ones who all LEOs swore an oath to "protect and serve."

It is not a call to arms. It is a plea for sanity.

The relationship between us and them should be so symbiotic as to be totally undistinguishable. Sadly, we two groups are becoming more disenfranchised - one group from another in many aspects. That there even is an "us & them" mentality causes me a great amount of unease.

How could such events come to such a pass?

Politicians pass ill-conceived laws and by definition of the job description, LEOs are tasked to and do carry out those "orders." At one TRT demonstration, there was a "designated First Amendment area." The irony was lost on most LEOs in attendance.

LEOs have special privileges that we, as mere citizens, are not allowed. As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, "all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others."

Any who would think that we would sit idly by while our rights are restricted, curtailed or fully stripped without speaking out or becoming outraged has not gone through the thought process

As with the Nuremberg Trials, the excuse of "I was just following orders" doesn’t wash.

The letter does state rather clearly that many of us are very expert in our use of arms and in our own gathering of private information (intel) and at some point, each may have to be put to use.

Pray God that never comes to pass.

The members of the law enforcement community should reevaluate their thinking - at the very least, attempt to understand what it is that is actually being said - rather than only seeing the non-existent "call to action."

By merely pointing out this most obvious fact, perhaps I am again, being overly naïve.

Two telling points in closing.

We, the law-abiding did not start this. We have paid our taxes, we have supported LEOs at most every turn, we have shown remarkable restraint while our privacies, very lives and all that we hold dear has been violated.

Yes, those of you in the Law Enforcement community are being set up - but not by us. You are being set up by the politicians who pass these ill-conceived laws. You are being set up by your Chiefs of Police. You are being set up by your city Mayors.

While they sit in their own protected enclaves and watch what happens, you put your lives, and those of your families, on the line every day, to enforce these ill-conceived laws..

No, Sir! We did not start this. Your bosses did.

The last reason why this will not be deleted is that this letter did not originate from some "right-wing wack-o." It came from a Law Enforcement Officer who was so disgusted with what is happening within his own rank and file that he could no longer remain silent.

I am,

Alan Albertus/labgrade
Tyranny Response Team
(for any LEO comments - you do have the number)
 
In 1982 the Senate sub committee on the constitution had this to say in print about the BATF:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and
laws of the United States.

It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.

It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property.(p.23)

It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due
process of law.[/quote]

Our trust was broken by those in charge.

dZ
 
Well, if the question is "does local law enforcement ever act deliberately against the RKBA", I would have to say that in California, we've answered that.

The answer is "hell yes".

Exhibit A:

In 1994, Glen Craig was Sheriff of Sacramento County, CA. Lou Blanas was his undersheriff and in 1998, was elected as Craig's chosen successor after Craig's planned retirement.

These two acted in concert against pro-CCW police chief Gene Byrd of the city of Isleton. Labeling him a "gun runner" and worse, they harassed him in the media about his shall-issue CCW practices.

What was really going on? Byrd was cutting into Craig and Blanas's illicit profits. We found out what was happening when a drunk name of James Colafrancesco flashed a gun during a verbal argument at a private party.

Here's two key pages from the resulting report taken by deputies upon finding his CCW permit issued by their own boss:
94076998_2.jpg


94076998_4.jpg


THIS IS NOT UNIQUE. Check out the rest of my site: http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw

Specific details of this sort of thing elsewhere can be found in these two Adobe Acrobat Reader .PDF files:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cccr.pdf (specific to Contra Costa County)
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/inca.pdf (Covers 8 counties, including a freakshow in LA worse than Colafrancesco, and more recent, in which reserve deputy status was sold along with the CCWs - out of 20 members of this fundamentally corrupt group, 2 were busted for felonies and the "unit" was disbanded in disgrace.)

The California brass as a group are deliberately making CCW rare so as to boost it's value as a political favor creating campaign contributions and direct under-the-table payoffs.

How can I trust street cops when the bosses that hire them aren't just antis, they're using anti-gun public paranoia to line their pockets?

Jim March
 
A bit of clarification.

My last post was as moderator of the TRT forum (into that forum & copied here for further on the thread here) - in case that didn't come through.

The latest "event" (shall we say for now) didn't really have anything to do with the firearms issue per se. It did have much to do with our TRT protest at the Boulder City Council chambers (6/21) and previous events where we held demonstrations.

Nope, not really did it have anything at all to do with the firearms issue. It had much to do with control, intimidation and "chust following orders."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top