The "other item" first. Heard on the hourly newscast a few moments ago the following. House of Representatives rejected renewal of part of Patriot Act dealing with library and book store records. Section 215?? Bush threatens veto. Interesting, no? JPFO material follows below.
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
June 15, 2005
JPFO ALERT: Don't Miss The Key Message of Our Taser Alert
Recently we sent out a JPFO Alert
(http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050610.htm) that included a
link to a video of an officer pulling over a woman driver
for speeding and equipment violations, but then arresting
her for driving on a suspended license. The woman
protested the stop, tried to use her cell phone, and
delayed in her response to get out of the car. In very
short order the officers used the high-voltage electric
Taser device on her to compel her cooperation.
The video with live audio and added commentary from a
police representative, was available for on-line. Viewers
could get the same facts that we did.
Our Alert clearly stated we did not draw a final conclusion
about whether the officers used excessive force or whether
the arrest was justified. We wrote:
"Was this arrest proper? Did the officer use the
appropriate amount of force? The legal answers are for a
judge and jury."
We stated our main message:
"For gun owners, the message is clear. This video shows one
real way that "gun control" laws will be enforced against
you. As registration and licensing and other so-called
reasonable "gun control" laws are enacted, your risk of
breaking those laws increases. A paperwork violation will
be enforced; the enforcers will use batons, Tasers, pepper
spray, or sidearms to take you down and bring you in."
A handful of viewers contacted us to challenge the Alert.
We welcome debate. Here are some of the challenges and our
brief responses to them:
Challenge No. 1: The driver "thought that being a
black woman would protect her" from the consequences
of breaking the speed law, not wearing seat belts, an
equipment violation and her "big mouth."
Response: There is no way to know what the driver thought
about the race issue, because that information is not in
the video. The driver was black, the officer was white.
There could have been racial tension both ways. We don't
think race is a good reason to employ the Taser, or not to
employ the Taser. Moreover, it was not the police
officer's job to punish what he might have thought was the
driver's attitude; on the other hand, we don't assume that
the officer was racist at all. The final decision on that
question, however, is for a judge and jury who receive all
of the facts.
Challenge No. 2: The woman should not have argued with
the officer. She should have saved her arguments for
the judge.
Response: Sometimes it might be a good idea not to argue
with an officer on the site of an arrest, as a matter of
prudence. On the other hand, standing up for your rights
at the moment of their being violated can be the most
important thing you do. This driver might have been quite
smart to proclaim her rights on the spot, because then her
position is clear on the recorded video. She spoke loudly
and helped record every event that took place. Nobody
could later claim that her "clever lawyer" created her
legal defenses out of thin air. More to the point: why is
verbally protesting a police action and proclaiming your
rights a good reason to increase the force used against
you?
Challenge No. 3: The Taser attack would never have
become necessary if the woman had simply turned off
her cell phone in mid-sentence and gotten out of her
car when ordered to do so.
Response: This speculation is probably true.
Nevertheless, we have to ask the question: if the driver
had been a Hollywood star (black or white), or a local
politician or government official, would the officers have
escalated to Taser force so rapidly? Would a city council
person (black or white) been allowed to finish her
telephone call to alert her family of her arrest before
being taken in?
Authorities tell us that the Taser is a "a non-lethal
alternative to using a firearm." We have to ask: should an
officer use Taser-level force against a person who is non-
violently delaying compliance with orders to get out of a
car? Have we become a nation of people in such a great
hurry that we expect our police officers to get control and
dispose of suspects immediately, without extending common
courtesies or a certain amount of patience?
We aren't second-guessing the police officer in this case;
he might have been doing exactly what he was supposed to
do. We are warning the average, ordinary hard-working
citizen and retired senior citizen about the kind of force
that police officers can use to compel your submission.
As the gun laws proliferate, ordinary citizen gun owners
will run an increasing risk of violating some law. This
video shows how the laws are enforced -- using powerful
equipment -- against citizens who aren't famous or well-
connected.
Challenge No. 4: The woman driver did endanger other
people by her speeding, driving with a brake light
out, and driving on a suspended license.
Response: The video provides no evidence that anyone was
actually endangered. Some of the popular police video TV
programs do show how speeders and fleeing felons blast
through crowded traffic and hit other cars or terrify other
drivers. That kind of driver misconduct threatens and
causes immediate harm to others. This video showed nothing
like that. This woman engaged, at most, in dangerous
activity.
Gun owners should understand the difference between
"dangerous activity" and "endangering others." It may be
dangerous to drive 100 mph, but on an open Arizona highway
without traffic, only the driver is endangered -- nobody
else. Similarly, carrying a loaded sidearm is more
"dangerous" than carrying an unloaded sidearm, because the
chance of unintended discharge or misuse of the loaded
sidearm is greater. Nevertheless, we do not say that a
person carrying a firearm in hand or in a holster,
concealed or openly, is always "endangering other people."
Getting a traffic ticket for speeding does not mean you
were necessarily endangering anyone but yourself. Traffic
tickets are typically for rules violations, not for violent
crimes. Similarly, driving with a brake light out or a
broken windshield, or driving on a suspended license, are
all rules violations, not violent crimes.
Most of the "gun control" laws in America establish
standards of conduct or paperwork requirements. These laws
do not prohibit violent crimes -- they punish non-violent
violations. It is a federal felony to fail to submit to
paperwork requirements to purchase firearms from dealers,
for example, even though no endangerment is involved.
Bottom Line:
We recognized from the outset that the police officer in
the video might have used appropriate force in the
situation, depending upon the facts and the law that may
apply. Our Alert addresses a different issue by helping
gun owners understand how paperwork violations and non-
violent conduct can reap some serious physical
consequences, even before trial and conviction. This woman
driver didn't have a weapon, yet she was Tasered. What
happens to you, a peaceful but armed citizen, when you
argue with a police officer at a traffic stop?
JPFO fights against "gun control" laws and policies that
lay legal traps for citizens. We work to re-establish
firearms ownership as a great American heritage. We don't
want firearms possession by itself to be a reason that
officers use to escalate force against nonviolent citizens.
It is important for Americans to know what that escalated
force looks like. Agree or disagree with the Florida
officers in this case, this video shows the realities that
citizens need to know.
- The Liberty Crew
==================================================
==========
JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net
==================================================
==========
LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
Just send a blank e-mail to jpfo_alerts-subscribe@topica.com
==================================================
===========
Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html
==================================================
===========
Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027
Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
June 15, 2005
JPFO ALERT: Don't Miss The Key Message of Our Taser Alert
Recently we sent out a JPFO Alert
(http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050610.htm) that included a
link to a video of an officer pulling over a woman driver
for speeding and equipment violations, but then arresting
her for driving on a suspended license. The woman
protested the stop, tried to use her cell phone, and
delayed in her response to get out of the car. In very
short order the officers used the high-voltage electric
Taser device on her to compel her cooperation.
The video with live audio and added commentary from a
police representative, was available for on-line. Viewers
could get the same facts that we did.
Our Alert clearly stated we did not draw a final conclusion
about whether the officers used excessive force or whether
the arrest was justified. We wrote:
"Was this arrest proper? Did the officer use the
appropriate amount of force? The legal answers are for a
judge and jury."
We stated our main message:
"For gun owners, the message is clear. This video shows one
real way that "gun control" laws will be enforced against
you. As registration and licensing and other so-called
reasonable "gun control" laws are enacted, your risk of
breaking those laws increases. A paperwork violation will
be enforced; the enforcers will use batons, Tasers, pepper
spray, or sidearms to take you down and bring you in."
A handful of viewers contacted us to challenge the Alert.
We welcome debate. Here are some of the challenges and our
brief responses to them:
Challenge No. 1: The driver "thought that being a
black woman would protect her" from the consequences
of breaking the speed law, not wearing seat belts, an
equipment violation and her "big mouth."
Response: There is no way to know what the driver thought
about the race issue, because that information is not in
the video. The driver was black, the officer was white.
There could have been racial tension both ways. We don't
think race is a good reason to employ the Taser, or not to
employ the Taser. Moreover, it was not the police
officer's job to punish what he might have thought was the
driver's attitude; on the other hand, we don't assume that
the officer was racist at all. The final decision on that
question, however, is for a judge and jury who receive all
of the facts.
Challenge No. 2: The woman should not have argued with
the officer. She should have saved her arguments for
the judge.
Response: Sometimes it might be a good idea not to argue
with an officer on the site of an arrest, as a matter of
prudence. On the other hand, standing up for your rights
at the moment of their being violated can be the most
important thing you do. This driver might have been quite
smart to proclaim her rights on the spot, because then her
position is clear on the recorded video. She spoke loudly
and helped record every event that took place. Nobody
could later claim that her "clever lawyer" created her
legal defenses out of thin air. More to the point: why is
verbally protesting a police action and proclaiming your
rights a good reason to increase the force used against
you?
Challenge No. 3: The Taser attack would never have
become necessary if the woman had simply turned off
her cell phone in mid-sentence and gotten out of her
car when ordered to do so.
Response: This speculation is probably true.
Nevertheless, we have to ask the question: if the driver
had been a Hollywood star (black or white), or a local
politician or government official, would the officers have
escalated to Taser force so rapidly? Would a city council
person (black or white) been allowed to finish her
telephone call to alert her family of her arrest before
being taken in?
Authorities tell us that the Taser is a "a non-lethal
alternative to using a firearm." We have to ask: should an
officer use Taser-level force against a person who is non-
violently delaying compliance with orders to get out of a
car? Have we become a nation of people in such a great
hurry that we expect our police officers to get control and
dispose of suspects immediately, without extending common
courtesies or a certain amount of patience?
We aren't second-guessing the police officer in this case;
he might have been doing exactly what he was supposed to
do. We are warning the average, ordinary hard-working
citizen and retired senior citizen about the kind of force
that police officers can use to compel your submission.
As the gun laws proliferate, ordinary citizen gun owners
will run an increasing risk of violating some law. This
video shows how the laws are enforced -- using powerful
equipment -- against citizens who aren't famous or well-
connected.
Challenge No. 4: The woman driver did endanger other
people by her speeding, driving with a brake light
out, and driving on a suspended license.
Response: The video provides no evidence that anyone was
actually endangered. Some of the popular police video TV
programs do show how speeders and fleeing felons blast
through crowded traffic and hit other cars or terrify other
drivers. That kind of driver misconduct threatens and
causes immediate harm to others. This video showed nothing
like that. This woman engaged, at most, in dangerous
activity.
Gun owners should understand the difference between
"dangerous activity" and "endangering others." It may be
dangerous to drive 100 mph, but on an open Arizona highway
without traffic, only the driver is endangered -- nobody
else. Similarly, carrying a loaded sidearm is more
"dangerous" than carrying an unloaded sidearm, because the
chance of unintended discharge or misuse of the loaded
sidearm is greater. Nevertheless, we do not say that a
person carrying a firearm in hand or in a holster,
concealed or openly, is always "endangering other people."
Getting a traffic ticket for speeding does not mean you
were necessarily endangering anyone but yourself. Traffic
tickets are typically for rules violations, not for violent
crimes. Similarly, driving with a brake light out or a
broken windshield, or driving on a suspended license, are
all rules violations, not violent crimes.
Most of the "gun control" laws in America establish
standards of conduct or paperwork requirements. These laws
do not prohibit violent crimes -- they punish non-violent
violations. It is a federal felony to fail to submit to
paperwork requirements to purchase firearms from dealers,
for example, even though no endangerment is involved.
Bottom Line:
We recognized from the outset that the police officer in
the video might have used appropriate force in the
situation, depending upon the facts and the law that may
apply. Our Alert addresses a different issue by helping
gun owners understand how paperwork violations and non-
violent conduct can reap some serious physical
consequences, even before trial and conviction. This woman
driver didn't have a weapon, yet she was Tasered. What
happens to you, a peaceful but armed citizen, when you
argue with a police officer at a traffic stop?
JPFO fights against "gun control" laws and policies that
lay legal traps for citizens. We work to re-establish
firearms ownership as a great American heritage. We don't
want firearms possession by itself to be a reason that
officers use to escalate force against nonviolent citizens.
It is important for Americans to know what that escalated
force looks like. Agree or disagree with the Florida
officers in this case, this video shows the realities that
citizens need to know.
- The Liberty Crew
==================================================
==========
JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net
==================================================
==========
LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!
Just send a blank e-mail to jpfo_alerts-subscribe@topica.com
==================================================
===========
Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html
==================================================
===========
Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027
Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/
