The taser comes to the area

[GT]

The person that got tazered would have been better off being a little more polite and not getting in the police mans face the instant he walked up to the car.

The point is however these "non-lethal" weapons seem to be getting used more and more. The cop admitted that he new from the begining of the stop that it was going to escalate.

[Russell Kanning]

We use to joke in LA that they don't even pull over cars full of young blacks or hispanics....they just go for the easy targets....women in SUVs and minivans.......if they put up a fight....just taser them.

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

Disarm the Police

by Gary North

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com  Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site 

I begin with an insight offered by Professor Carroll Quigley (1910?1977), who taught history to Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. He had such a profound impact on Clinton that Clinton referred to him in his 1992 nomination acceptance speech. Quigley is famous among conservatives for his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966), in which he devoted 20 pages to the connections between Wall Street banking firms and American foreign policy, which has been dominated by the liberal left (pp. 950ff). But Quigley was also an expert in the history of weaponry. One of his books, Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History, was printed directly from a typewritten manuscript and is known only to a handful of specialists, was a 1,000-page history of weaponry that ended with the Middle Ages. In Tragedy and Hope, he wrote about the relationship between amateur weapons and liberty. By amateur, he meant low cost. He meant, in the pejorative phrase of political statists, Saturday-night specials.

    In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . .

    But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840 a Colt revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them).

According to Quigley, the eighteenth-century's commitment to popular government was reinforced ? indeed, made possible ? by price-competitive guns that made the average colonial farmer a threat to a British regular. Paul Revere's midnight warning, "The regulars are out!" would have had no purpose or effect had it not been that the "minute men" were armed and dangerous.

With this in mind, let me present my thesis.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right ? the legal immunity from interference by the State ? of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.

It doesn't go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England's bobbies are not allowed to carry them.

Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.

Children would be also taught that the first person to pull a gun to defend an unarmed policeman or any other unarmed person deserves the lion's share of the credit. Late-comers would be regarded as barely more than onlookers. This is necessary to offset the "Kitty Genovese phenomenon." In 1964, this young woman was attacked and murdered in full view of 38 onlookers, in their Queens, New York, neighborhood. Despite her screams for help, no one even bothered to call the police. This is the "who goes first?" problem.

Anyone so foolish as to attack a policeman would be looking down the barrels of, say, a dozen handguns. "Go ahead, punk. Make our day!"

A policeman would gain obedience, like James Stewart in Destry Rides Again, through judicial empowerment. He would not threaten anyone with immediate violence. He would simply say, "Folks, I've got a problem here. This person is resisting arrest. Would three of you accompany me to the local station with this individual?"

He would blow his whistle, and a dozen sawed-off shotguns accompanied by people would be there within 60 seconds.

Every member of society would be trained from an early age to honor the law as an adult by being willing to carry a handgun. Everyone would see himself as a defender of the law and a peace-keeper. Guns would be universal. Every criminal would know that the man or woman next to him is armed and dangerous. He would be surrounded at all times by people who see their task as defending themselves and others against the likes of him.

The only person he could trust not to shoot him dead in his tracks for becoming an aggressor would be the policeman on the beat. The aggressor's place of safety would be custody.

There would be another effect on social life. When every adult is armed, civility increases. In a world of armed Davids, Goliaths would learn to be civil. The words of Owen Wister's Virginian, "Smile when you say that," would regain their original meaning.

The doctrine of citizen's arrest would be inculcated in every child from age six. Then, at the coming of age, every new citizen would take a public vow to uphold the constitution. He or she would then be handed a certificate of citizenship, which would automatically entitle the bearer to carry an automatic. Note: I did not say semi-automatic.

THE EXPERIENCE OF ENGLAND

In England, where the police have not carried guns for well over a century, violent crime remained low until the mid-twentieth century. This changed when the government began banning the private ownership of guns. This development is presented in full academic paraphernalia by Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Oxford University Press, 2002). Dr. David Gordon summarized her findings in a recent book review in The Mises Review.

    She proceeds by a learned study of violent crime in England, from the Middle Ages to the present. In her survey, a constant theme emerges. As guns became more prevalent, violent crime decreased. This trend culminated in the nineteenth century, when death by murder was rare but guns were widespread. The seizure of guns during the twentieth century has been accompanied by a marked increase in violent crime. At present some types of violent crime are more common in England than in America. As usual, the statists have their facts exactly backward.

Professor Quigley would have understood the following bit of historical information.

    Developments in the eighteenth century should by now come as no surprise. "[A]t the very time that the individual right to be armed was becoming well established and guns were replacing earlier weapons, the homicide rate continued its precipitous decline" (pp. 88?89).

But Professor Quigley's most famous student and his wife would not understand this:

    Readers will not earn a reward for correctly guessing Malcolm's conclusions about the nineteenth century. Once again, the number of guns increased while violent crime declined. "The nineteenth century ended with firearms plentifully available while rates of armed crime had been declining and were to reach a record low" (p. 130).

    So far, we have a vast example of an inductive argument. Increases in the prevalence of guns have always accompanied decreases in violent crime. Does this not strongly suggest that guns in private hands deter crime? The twentieth century, especially its latter half, gives us a chance to test our induction, since ownership of guns during that period came under strict control. If it turns out that violent crime increased, then as Hume once remarked, "I need not complete the syllogism; you can draw the conclusion yourself."

    And of course violent crime did increase. "Scholars of criminology have traced a long decline in interpersonal violence since the late Middle Ages until an abrupt and puzzling reversal occurred in the middle of the twentieth century . . . a statistical comparison of crime in England and Wales with crime in America, based on 1995 figures, discovered that for three categories of violent crimes ? assaults, burglary, and robbery ? the English are now at far greater risk than Americans" (pp. 164?65).

    Gun control advocates, faced with these facts, will at once begin to yammer uncontrollably, "a correlation is not a cause." Indeed it is not; but in this instance, a strong correlation holds in two ways: when guns increase in number, violent crimes decrease, and when guns decrease, violent crimes increase. Further, a plausible causal story explains the correlation: the prospect of armed resistance deters criminals. This is about as good as an inductive argument gets. But I do not anticipate that those who wish to take away the right to self-defense will alter their position. They aim to make everyone totally dependent on the all-powerful state.

SELF-GOVERNMENT UNDER LAWFUL AUTHORITY

Unarmed police, now fully deserving of protection by gun-bearing citizens, would gain immense respect. They would rule by the force of law, meaning respect for the law, meaning widespread voluntary submission by the citizenry. This is properly called self-government under lawful authority. The policeman's word would be law. He just wouldn't be armed.

A criminal would not escape from the scene of the crime by shooting the cop on the beat. He would not get 20 yards from the cop's body.

Citizens would regard a law enforcement officer as they regard their mothers. They would do what they were told with little more than rolling their eyes. If anyone physically challenged a police officer, he would risk facing a dozen Clint Eastwoods who have been waiting for two decades to get an opportunity to make their day.

To make this system work, the courts would have to enforce strict liability. Injure the wrong person, and (assuming you survive the shoot-out) you must pay double restitution. Kill the wrong person, and you must pay the ultimate restitution: eye for eye, life for life. But no faceless bureaucrat hired by the State would do the act. A group of armed citizens will execute you under the authority of the court. Remember, the police are unarmed.

The fact that citizens in no society think this way is evidence of how well the defenders of State monopoly power have done their work. They want their agents armed and the rest of us unarmed. A free society would reverse this arrangement.

CONCLUSION

There are those who will reply that my proposal is utopian, that civilians do not have sufficient courage to come to the aid of an unarmed policeman. Furthermore, they will complain, the common man is not sufficiently self-disciplined to live under the rule of law as I have described it. Both objections have validity. I can only respond by pointing out that a society in which its citizens possess neither courage nor self-discipline is not a free society. I am not here proposing a technical reform that will produce a free society. Rather, I am describing why freedom has departed from this nation ever since, for lack of a better date, 1788.

August 18, 2003

Gary North is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.freebooks.com. For a free subscription to Gary North's newsletter on gold, click here.

Copyright ? 2003 LewRockwell.com

[Lloyd Danforth]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police.

He lost me right here. Clearly, not a libertarian.

[Michael Fisher]

1.  He's not a libertarian.

2.  He thinks a piece of paper can protect our rights.  It can't.  Never has, never will.

[Russell Kanning]

What do you think about the main points in his article?....I liked this article when I read it a few months ago and just mentioned it to Kat. How much better would it be if the cops didn't have guns and tasers? I don't think onlookers would taser women that refuse to get out of their cars during a traffic stop.

[Michael Fisher]

I do not believe there should be arbitrary government police forces at all, only private self-defense companies.

I do not believe the police should be disarmed.  They are human beings too.  Their legal protection should be removed so they must be responsible with their arms like the rest of us.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I believe that everyone, who wants to, should be armed. I believe, that after a certain amount of fallout, we would have a more polite society. ?This is not England.
I think the position of policemen should be eliminated, and, replaced with privite security, but, as long as we have cops, it is unreasonable to ask them to go unarmed. ?The just shouldn't have any extra rights, or, reduced liability.

[Russell Kanning]

How about we take tasers from any cops if they misuse them?

[AlanM]

The example of England, and its unarmed Bobbies, is unique in history. It was possible in THAT society, at THAT time of history. If guns are made legal for everyone, at any time, the policeman, being a subset of "everyone" should have the right to be armed. How they use firearms should be dealt with as it is with non-police.

[tracysaboe]

The problem is, the police -- at least while they're on duty -- don't have to take responcibility for their actions -- the same way civilians are. This is why they're typically more reckless, more likely to be abusive, and more likely to shoot inocents. (12% of people shot by cops are inocent - vs. around 2% shot by civilians. Police -- being a subset of government, should be more constrained. The right to bare arms, is something government officials volentarily give up -- by virtue of becomine part of the government.  The act of becoming part of the government -- means they loose some of their rights.

Or at least they should.

Tracy

[Kat Kanning]

From Jews for the Preservation of Firearms:

    June 15, 2005

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

[Kat Kanning]

Grandmother who was Tasered gets probation

August 2, 2005
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-kan02.html

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A 67-year-old grandmother who was shocked with a Taser stun gun after she honked her car horn at a police cruiser has been given a year's probation for sparking a quarrel with officers.

A charge of improper use of the horn against Louise Jones was dismissed last week in Kansas City Municipal Court. Her husband, Fred, 76, who became involved in the fray last year, also got one year of probation for the same charges -- resisting arrest and attempting to inflict injury on an officer.

The only condition of the probation is that the couple obey all laws.

The incident, which resulted in a change in department policy and the disciplining of two officers, happened in June 2004 as police were responding to a disturbance call across the street from the couple's home. Officers said they approached Louise Jones after she honked her horn, thinking she had reported the disturbance or perhaps was in trouble. A defense witness testified the honk was accidental.

"She immediately became hostile to us," Officer Ryan VanDeusen testified. He said that she continued the verbal assault when the officers returned to their squad car.

"It was very loud, it was antagonistic, it was very derogatory toward my partner and I," he testified.

Officer Cory LeMoine said he told Jones he could give her a ticket for honking the horn, and that a physical confrontation began after she wouldn't show him her driver's license. He said he and his partner struggled with Jones both inside and outside her house. The officers said that while VanDeusen was trying to handcuff her, Fred Jones came down the stairs and leveled his shoulder into him.

Teaching her a lesson?

VanDeusen said he used the Taser on Louise Jones when his partner couldn't get her under control.

The Jones disputed the officers' account. Louise Jones and other defense witnesses said she wasn't confrontational and that the comments she made were directed to a friend, not to the officers.

"She says something to the neighbor across the street and the officer didn't like that," said defense attorney Basil North. "He decided he was going to teach her a lesson." AP

[Russell Kanning]

maybe time to teach them a lesson

[Pat K]

Holy crap, They had to taser a 67 year old lady cause they could not control her? Good thing they did not come along 7 years ago when she was a spry 60, she would have kicked their asses.


Also notice how fragile their egos are and how little it takes to provoke them - and old lady was yelling at them big deal, God what sorry people they are hiring to be cops.