CCOPS:
Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States
January 1, 2001
CCOPS Vindicated
An Open Letter to Critics of CCOPS and JPFO
Our concerns about police abuse in America have been confirmed by former San Diego Police office and California Highway Patrolman who gives a keen insight into how severe the problem is: We urge you to read this e-mail we received from Reg Thibodeau:
* * *
[Dear critics of CCOPS and JPFO]:
As a former San Diego police officer who also spent over ten years employed by the California Highway Patrol, I want you to know you couldn't possibly be more wrong about [Angel] Shamaya and JPFO.
Sometime, late at night, when you are alone and able to be honest with yourself, you might understand that law enforcement has replaced those of us who wished to be peace keepers with people willing to enforce bad laws and escape personal responsibility for bad actions.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that all law enforcement officers have deserted the Constitution and betrayed the oath we took to support it. Some cops do less damage then others, because they try to do what they know is right. Some simply enforce "the law", irrespective of whether it is Constitutional, moral, or not.
You can defend improper, immoral, and unConstitutional behavior on the part of some of our brethren if you wish, but realize that those who speak out against it are not wrong. Those who defend such behavior are wrong.
Sincerely,
Reg Thibodeau
Roseburg, OR
Addendum: Sorry if there was some confusion here, but to keep the record straight, my time with CHP was in Communications as a Communications Operator, not as a TO (Traffic Officer). I was a patrolman at San Diego PD, with a small dept. in Connecticut, and as a reserve officer with a small PD in Northern California while I was employed by CHP. Just in case someone makes an issue of it.
* * *
Read "Government Murders Innocent Men, Women and Children" by Ron Dotson:
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/information/abuse.asp
For those who criticize us, always ask "What is their motivation?" and "What is their reward?".
CCOPS is doing extremely crucial work in keeping freedom alive. Please support our effort.
The Liberty Crew
CCOPS:
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"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -- The Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 CCOPS < webmaster@ccops.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im well aware the last alert is an older one but felt that it needed to be brought to our attention again.
No I do not think such actions/opinoins should be glossed over with the coming of a new president. Such local
attacjs of our liberties still ocurr and should still be
greatly shunned especially when done by tax paid 'law'
enforcement officers just as by our 'elected' reprasenatives.
Im glad that CCOPS AND KABA have the backbone to confront
such groups when their actions cross the line and will not
tip toe around them like some larger groups have at times
wishing 'peace' with all even at the cost of yet further
restrictions on our and fearing the negative opinoins of such groups that feel their 'postions' or jobs put them above such criticism by the people they are claiming to serve.
I am a pround member and contributer of JPFO,CCOPS,KABA
and especially GOA whom give no ground and who refuse to play politics when it comes to our freedom.
Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States
January 1, 2001
CCOPS Vindicated
An Open Letter to Critics of CCOPS and JPFO
Our concerns about police abuse in America have been confirmed by former San Diego Police office and California Highway Patrolman who gives a keen insight into how severe the problem is: We urge you to read this e-mail we received from Reg Thibodeau:
* * *
[Dear critics of CCOPS and JPFO]:
As a former San Diego police officer who also spent over ten years employed by the California Highway Patrol, I want you to know you couldn't possibly be more wrong about [Angel] Shamaya and JPFO.
Sometime, late at night, when you are alone and able to be honest with yourself, you might understand that law enforcement has replaced those of us who wished to be peace keepers with people willing to enforce bad laws and escape personal responsibility for bad actions.
If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that all law enforcement officers have deserted the Constitution and betrayed the oath we took to support it. Some cops do less damage then others, because they try to do what they know is right. Some simply enforce "the law", irrespective of whether it is Constitutional, moral, or not.
You can defend improper, immoral, and unConstitutional behavior on the part of some of our brethren if you wish, but realize that those who speak out against it are not wrong. Those who defend such behavior are wrong.
Sincerely,
Reg Thibodeau
Roseburg, OR
Addendum: Sorry if there was some confusion here, but to keep the record straight, my time with CHP was in Communications as a Communications Operator, not as a TO (Traffic Officer). I was a patrolman at San Diego PD, with a small dept. in Connecticut, and as a reserve officer with a small PD in Northern California while I was employed by CHP. Just in case someone makes an issue of it.
* * *
Read "Government Murders Innocent Men, Women and Children" by Ron Dotson:
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/information/abuse.asp
For those who criticize us, always ask "What is their motivation?" and "What is their reward?".
CCOPS is doing extremely crucial work in keeping freedom alive. Please support our effort.
The Liberty Crew
CCOPS:
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"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -- The Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2000 CCOPS < webmaster@ccops.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im well aware the last alert is an older one but felt that it needed to be brought to our attention again.
No I do not think such actions/opinoins should be glossed over with the coming of a new president. Such local
attacjs of our liberties still ocurr and should still be
greatly shunned especially when done by tax paid 'law'
enforcement officers just as by our 'elected' reprasenatives.
Im glad that CCOPS AND KABA have the backbone to confront
such groups when their actions cross the line and will not
tip toe around them like some larger groups have at times
wishing 'peace' with all even at the cost of yet further
restrictions on our and fearing the negative opinoins of such groups that feel their 'postions' or jobs put them above such criticism by the people they are claiming to serve.
I am a pround member and contributer of JPFO,CCOPS,KABA
and especially GOA whom give no ground and who refuse to play politics when it comes to our freedom.
