• About
  • Blog (Ext.)
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources
  • News Links

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: police

The Modern Highwaymen

09 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, civil forfeiture, crime, freedom, government, police, theft

I was a highwayman
Along the coach roads I did ride
With sword and pistol by my side
Many a young maid lost her baubles to my trade
Many a soldier shed his lifeblood on my blade
The bastards hung me in the spring of twenty-five
But I am still alive…

  • Highwayman, Jimmy Webb, popularized by the Highwaymen.

Highwayman: noun, plural highwaymen.
1. (formerly) a holdup man, especially one on horseback, who robbed travelers along a public road. (Dictionary.com)

It’s not “formerly”. Highwaymen still roam the roads of America looking to relieve people of their property. Some are known as the police, others as the Highway Patrol.

The pigs have a clever trick to rob you called “civil asset forfeiture”. There’s nothing civil about it; they just seize your property (usually cash) and, if you want it back, you have to jump through burdensome legal hoops. Most victims don’t bother. I’d say 90%+ of the cash stolen is forfeited to the criminal state – I’ve watched in court before (case after case of The State vs. $943.72 and so on). The same police who absolutely will not lift a finger to help violent crime victims are more than wiling to steal your cash.

Silverdoctors.com.

Now it’s not just cash at risk. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is now using a card reader to steal money straight from bank accounts and credit/debit cards.

“We’re gonna look for different factors in the way that you’re acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We’re gonna look for if there’s a difference in your story. If there’s someway that we can prove that you’re falsifying information to us about your business.”

Troopers insist this isn’t just about seizing cash.

“I know that a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money. That’s a very small thing that’ s happening now. The largest part that we have found … the biggest benefit has been the identity theft,” Vincent said.

“If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we’ve done that in the past,” Vincent said about any money seized.

State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we’ve already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing the system.

Hats off to Sen. Loveless (you know the cops don’t love him) but the problem isn’t abuse of the system, it’s that the system itself is abusive. This system has to go. What’s the proper remedy? The old song tells us exactly. We need not wait until the spring of twenty-five to hang ’em – now would be a good time.

They Really Don’t Need a Stinking Warrant

01 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Bill of Rights, cigars, Constitution, FDA, Founders, Fourth Amendment, Fourth Circuit, freedom, government, law, police, police state, privacy, searches, The People

America: THE land of freedom, right? Well, economically speaking, we certainly are freer than most of the world, say countries like Somalia or North Korea. It terms of developed, civilized nations, we’re number 11.

nimbus-image-1464816580423

Freedom Index 2016, Heritage.

Switzerland and Australia are numbers 4 and 5 under “free” by the way. Again, that’s economic freedom or the lack thereof – taxes, business regs, etc.

In terms of personal freedom America is nowhere near where it used to be. Those specific rights protected by the Constitution are all but a memory. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just sided with the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits to deep-six the Fourth Amendment and the protection against unreasonable searches of persons, papers, and things.

When law enforcement asks a company for cellphone records to track location data in an investigation, is that a search under the Fourth Amendment?

By a 12-3 vote, appellate court judges in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday ruled that it is not — and therefore does not require a warrant.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld what is known as the third-party doctrine: a legal theory suggesting that consumers who knowingly and willingly surrender information to third parties therefore have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in that information — regardless of how much information there is, or how revealing it is.

Research clearly shows that cell-site location data collected over time can reveal a tremendous amount of personal information — like where you live, where you work, when you travel, who you meet with, and who you sleep with. And it’s impossible to make a call without giving up your location to the cellphone company.

This issue will likely make it to the high court one day where this precedent will be upheld. The developing theory is that no-one, outside of government criminals like Hillary Clinton, has any right or expectation to privacy – anywhere or regarding anything.

Google.

There are ways around such blatantly  Unconstitutional measures. However, the “law” has decided that taken such tactical precautions is evidence of wrong-doing all by itself. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Such measures also elude the technical capabilities of most people anyway.

The worn-out line of the sheep goes: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” Two problems there: 1) you don’t know what they consider “wrong”, and; 2) how about when the government is wrong? What then? Move to a freer country? There are at least ten out there – one right next door to the U.S. Sit in your house and do absolutely nothing? That can be considered an indication of criminal intent or an invitation for a “welfare check-in” by the police.

The odds are you do not have anything to worry about. Obey the government in general, don’t make any waves, and they will probably leave you alone. Probably was not what the Founders had in mind with the Bill of Rights though. They desired protection from ALL government overreach.

Overreach is all the government does these days. I noted the other day that the FDA is out to kill off the cigar industry. The draconian regulations are about to begin. I’ve got a lot more coming on that soon. Please note thought, if you read my thoughts on a cellular device (or most any device) the cops may be watching. Worried about that? You should be…

Little Dead Riding Hood, a Morality Tale of Good Citizenship

15 Sunday May 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on Little Dead Riding Hood, a Morality Tale of Good Citizenship

Tags

crime, freedom, government, law, murder, police, Red Riding Hood, The People, tyranny, War, wolf

Once upon a time there was a seemingly sweet little girl whom everyone called Red Riding Hood. Her real name has been forgotten but we know she earned here nickname because she always wore the red riding hood sewn for her by her mother. (Makes sense, huh?)

Red Riding Hood was the delight of the neighborhood. She always went out of her way to speak to all and to make them happy. She never knew her father as he died fighting for your right to vote or something in one of King Cole’s foreign wars for banking supremacy. Her gentle mother made a meager but honest living selling home-grown fruits and canned jams and jellies.

One day Red Riding Hood’s mother asked the little dear to take some fresh fruit to Grandmother who, it seems, was not feeling very well. Grandmother lived on the other side of a small but dense (and thus, dark) forest. Red Riding Hood was delighted as she loved walking through the woods, smelling the flowers, and conversing with her animal friends.

She had not soon set out when she met a company of manly woodsmen who were taking a break from felling trees. Red Riding Hood waved and said, “hello!,” as she skipped along. The woodcutters smiled and waved back.

Deeper in the woods Red Riding Hood stopped to pick some flowers for Grandmother. She thought they would help cheer the old woman just a bit. As she stopped to examine some wild gardenias a shadow fell on her. She looked up to see a large, shaggy wolf standing there, eyeing her. She jumped up and hugged the beast, thinking she had made a new and furry friend. She didn’t know the old wolf.

She didn’t know that he was working as an informant for the police in exchange for a lenient plea in the disappearance of several little pigs. In exchange for his freedom the old wolf had agreed to work with the police in order to bust up Red Riding Hood’s mother’s unlicensed fruit distribution business. He had also lied about Grandmother using medical marijuana.

The crooked old monster feigned interest in Red Riding Hood’s story about taking flowers and fruit to her ailing Grandmother. The wolf insisted that better flowers could be found along the longer path to Grandmother’s house. It was his intent to have Red Riding Hood waste time while he took a shortcut to the old lady’s house. In an unmarked van several blocks away, burly men listened intently to the conversation. The wolf wore a wire.

The little girl took the wolf’s advice and went off in search of prettier flowers. The wolf immediately darted off to Grandmother’s abode. Upon reaching it he went inside, beat the poor woman, and left her tied up in the closet. After rummaging through her refrigerator and jewelry box he made himself at home in her bed.

Eventually Red Riding Hood arrived with fresh flowers for Grandmother. She knocked on the door. “Come in,” said a strange voice. Red Riding Hood went inside and looked around for Grandmother. She thought the rooms looked ransacked but tried to take no notice. Then she saw someone in the bed. “Come closer,” said the voice.

“Oh, Grandmother. What big ears you have!” exclaimed Red Riding Hood.

The wolf did not have time to answer. At that moment a kindly woodcutter charged in with his axe at the ready.

“Get back! That’s a wolf!,” he yelled as he kicked the old lech out of the bed. He raised his axe to strike. His blow never fell.

A flash-bang grenade went off, knocking Red Riding Hood from her feet. In an instant dozens of heavily armed storm-troopers made a dynamic entry!

“He’s got a weapon!” screamed the foremost of the overweight tax-feeders. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang went their rifles as they dispatched the stunned woodcutter. The shooting was later justified due to “officer safety”, resisting arrest, and a violation of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.).

One of the loose rounds went through the closet wall, striking Grandmother and shattering her hip. She fell through the door crying in pain.

Red Riding Hood saw her bleeding Grandmother and rushed to her side. Her furtive movements caught the eye of a jackboot. “ZAP!” Red Riding Hood was tasered and beaten about the head and shoulders. She died at the hospital the next morning from blunt force trauma and a taser-induced heart attack. “Serves the dirty little fruit-peddler right!” boasted an unnamed police spokesman. The hefty public “servant” added, “she stole flowers too!”

At the same Grandmother’s house was targeted a simultaneous operation took out the woodsmen for illegal logging operations. Several were shot to death. The survivors were tried and convicted for, among other things, felony murder (the deaths of their colleagues).

The old wolf thought himself safe. Indeed the operation had gone exactly as a police investigator told him it would. He was about to make his getaway and head over to Peter’s Grandfather’s home for another assignment when one of the government thugs noticed how much the wolf resembled a dog. Pursuant to police policy all of the officers suddenly felt threatened. The wolf died in a hail of bullets, shot in the back.

Some days later Grandmother was recovering at Red Riding Hood’s mother’s house. They were mourning the girl’s passing and terrified about the coming medical bills. Both women were killed “resisting arrest” when a combined FBI and FDA S.W.A.T. team executed a warrant in search of further untaxed fruit.

At his home miles away, one Jack Sprat said he felt safer knowing all the domestic terrorists had been subdued. His corpulent wife grazed on Cheetos and watched FOX News.

The moral of this story is: obey the law or die. Or, just die. The law. Something like that.

Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

Tags

14th Amendment, America, Constitution, due process, Fifth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, freedom, God, government, insanity, law, Ninth Circuit, police, rights, Ted Cruz, Texas, The People, War

Perrin’s definition of government: (Noun) (originating around 10,000 B.C. in Hell) A collection of psychopathic control freaks hell-bent on minding everyone else’s business at gun point. This lowly institution is good for killing people, enriching bankers, and not much else.

Show me a government, any government, and I’ll show you a murder of monstrous, freedom-crushing maniacs. Meddlesome at best, Satanic at worst, an unfit concept long passed over by civilization.

Texas once had a law banning the sale of dildos – not making that up. One woman was actually prosecuted after holding a sales party at her home. Several adult entertainment businesses sued the State claiming a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation. See: Reliable Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Earle and The State of Texas, 517 F.3d 738, Slip Op. 06-51067 (5th Cir., 2008). The Fifth Circuit struck down the law and struck a blow for individual freedom (as corny a freedom as may be…).

The Texas Solicitor who argued (in vain) against the sale of rubber weapons of mass destruction was none other than Presidential candidate Ted “Glen Beck’s Man Crush” Cruz  – he the victor of the recent Colorado GOP non primary. I’m not sure how much tax money he wasted on the case (Federal Court ain’t cheap rent). He did obviously waste the time of the Judges, earning himself a 2-1 overthrow. Teddy declined to take the case higher. Lonely housewives breathed easier. Or, rapidly. Something.

The Fifth Circuit took down Texas’s law in as much because of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 578 (2003) (a la Bowers v. Hardwick) as because the government presented no evidence of any legitimate state interest necessitating such an idiotic, overbearing, busybody ban in the first place. More on legitimacy in a moment. The Court held: “The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.” Reliable, Id. at Slip 10.

Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification.

Id, at 11 (double emphasis added).

The State and Teddy came to battle with no factual evidence and a shaky “moral” legal argument. Morals are good. Their best in their place. Many are upset by the notion that one cannot legislate morality. A ruling like this is salt in their wounds. Their reaction is evidence of their own lack of morality, of a substitution of the Divine with the positive. God will handle matters related to morality. He does not need help from Texas or any other band of liars and thieves. Speaking of morality and Ted Cruz, Ted now advocates carpet bombing. Incinerating civilians is much more moral than selling a vibrator; God will surely agree.

The moment has come! Let’s look at the Texan idea that the state as an interest in banning sex toys in order to protect children and promote procreation (making up our evidence, if needed, as the State provided none). Law professors and black-robed priests prattle on about various standards of state interests – to be weighed against human freedoms or rights. Compelling, rationally related, important, legitimate – all artful when written out in a brief but still bullshit. I care, here, about the factor of legitimacy, real legitimacy. When talking about people (women one would hope) who use these…devices it becomes obvious they are the sorts who are not interested, at the time, in procreation. They’re looking for a little fun. They’re minding their own business behind closed doors.

Government is not content to leave anyone alone, that much is clear. What, really, honestly, is a state’s interest in procreation, children and humans in general. There is no guaranteed supply of people; no state is just entitled to subjects. In their absence the state would have no one to govern, to boss around. Therein lies the interest. Children are future taxpayers to the state. They are future speed trap victims. They are future cannon-fodder to march off to war. It’s immoral from the state’s perspective to withhold future victims, victims who might be needed to carry out such morality as a carpet bombing run.

The other week another opinion came out a different Court of Appeals on a different topic. Whereas the Fifth Circuit got Reliable right, the Ninth missed the Constitution on searches and seizures in United States v. Magallon-Lopez, ___F.3d___, Slip Op. 14-30249 (9th Cir., March 31, 2016). Different results for freedom but both cases highlight the hateful, demented existence of government.

In Magallon-Lopez the famously liberal Ninth Circuit sided with the police state. “The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that police officers can lie to suspects in regards to a traffic stop — even when no violation has occurred. The ruling essentially gives police officers carte blanche to stop anyone they want for absolutely no reason — merely acting on a hunch.” Matt Agorist, Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior, The Free Thought Project, April 11, 2016.

The criminal subject matter of Magallon is as unpopular as that of Reliable was silly. Defendant Magallon was a meth peddler, unwelcome in most communities. Still, we play the cases we are dealt. Both actions revolve around universal rights and are only brought to light by their subject participants. Both demonstrate government will do anything to abrogate liberty.

The defendant, who did not and could not seriously contest the existence of reasonable suspicion for stopping the car, contended that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. Rejecting this contention, the panel wrote that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. The panel concluded that in light of the information obtained during the stop, the officers had probable cause to seize the car.

Magallon-Lopez, Id. at Slip 2 (Summary)(emphasis added).

Magallon and a friend were suspected by the DEA of running drugs. This was known to local Montana police who initiated a traffic stop. The asserted reason for the stop was an improper lane change – a flat lie. The vehicle was seized and searched, meth was found, and the occupants arrested. Again, the police only knew that other police suspected the defendant of carrying drugs (these are illegal for the same specious reasons sex toys were in Texas). The arresting officers had no actual knowledge of real criminal activity. Therefore they lied. And, lying is okay as long as it is done by the government. Given this new standard I may have to refresh How to Interact with the Police – best to just live your life completely in a basement somewhere.

So much for the Fourth Amendment. The Court withheld a ruling on Due Process grounds (really, they did enough). No dissent in this case, just a concurrence which noted that Montana officers are statutorily bound to disclose their (real) reasons for arresting someone. Lying and breaking the law are okay so long as committed by servants of the state.

A “God-fearing” conservative desiring war over privacy. Former “liberals” selling out liberty for lies and lawlessness. No, one doesn’t need a government for this – an insane asylum would be enough.

Intimitated.org.

By the way: this is post number 450. Rolling!

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, DUI, freedom, Georgia, government, intelligence, law, Natural Law, police, reason, rights, The People, tyranny

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

A Dichotomy Of Arms

18 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Amercia, anarchy, arms, army, Athens, authority, firearms, freedom, God, government, guns, history, Iraq, law, Melian Dialouge, Melos, military, murder, Natural Law, Paul, police, police state, power, Romans 13, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, state worship, The People, War

A man in Wyoming was out riding his bicycle. According to him he was attacked by a vicious German Shepherd (Belgian Malinois). Fearing for his life he shot the dog to death with his trusty revolver. It’s a story you may have missed. It only made the news because the dog in question was a former military service dog, a Bronze Star recipient, no less. I find the story interesting because it sheds light on a schism amongst the American people.

Mike was a nine year old dog who previously served two combat tours in Iraq. Upon his retirement Mike was adopted by Matthew Bessler, a retired Army Ranger. Both veterans suffered from PTSD; they provided each other with beneficial companionship.

Bessler went hunting. He left Mike in the care of a friend. Mike wandered off and encountered the cyclist – with deadly results. There, the news story ends.

The cyclist was not charged, his use of deadly force deemed by police to be justifiable self-defense. A GoFundMe page has been set up in order to provide Mike with a military burial.

A sub-controversey surrounds the fact the lethal shot hit Mike in the rear or back. I discount this factor. Attacking dogs move very fast. Shooting scenarios move fast too. A shot in the back does not, by itself, disqualify self-defense, especially concerning an animal. The old, false adage that retreat is better if possible is dangerous when one crosses a predatory animal. Withdrawal might trigger a chase or hunt instinct which could be worse than the initial confrontation. Like everyone else, I was not present and I can only go by the shooter’s account, tempered by reasoned thinking.

On the surface I find this story sad all the way around. I regret Mike’s death. I regret the cyclist felt his life was endangered to the point of resorting to shooting. I’m sorry Mike and Bessler suffered PTSD. I’m sorry their conditions were the results of the government’s inexplicable and indefensible war in Iraq. It’s terrible some think we need that government.

2D7F373900000578-3277028-image-m-6_1445086822138

Mike, another victim of the State. Daily Mail, UK.

Based on the bare facts reported by the (British) press, I support the cyclist’s account of the incident and his use of force. I can see a dog with PTSD (even if usually docile) becoming aggressive around a stranger. It happens.

I also hold Mike blameless. Even a vicious, dangerous animal is still just that, an animal. Mike was utterly blameless, too, regarding his military service and resulting illness. A human soldier with a conscious can object to illegal wars of aggression. A dog can’t.

Any blame here rests with the friend who was supposed to watch Mike. Large dogs should be leashed or fenced. Maybe there is no one to blame. Mike could have escaped a reasonable containment. Dogs do things like that. Maybe this was just a bad thing that happened – like a tornado or a freak accident.

At any rate, all of this is merely supporting background for my story. I noticed themes in the comments which accompanied the news which, upon further consideration, formed my titular dichotomy.

There were hundreds of comments which roughly divided into two camps. The first was supportive of the cyclist. They found the shooting justified. Most of these also held a pro Second Amendment bias. The other group was mortally offended at the death of a military hero, albeit a dog.

The former group fully supported the individual right of self preservation even if they found Mike’s death lamentable as I do. The latter hold the shooting of a military veteran indefensible under any circumstance.

There were a few other reactions. Some found the existence of the subject firearm the problem. I suppose some might hate bicycles or hate dogs. These opinions are outliers and safely factor out of my analysis.

Some pro-shooter comments:

Should have been on a leash.

…

Too bad for the dog but most communities have leash laws for a reason…and yes, many joggers and bicyclists are bitten by uncontrolled dogs, that’s why pepper spray is a good idea.

…

“Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said: ‘Essentially, if you feel your life is in danger or threatened by an animal, you can act against it.’ Exactly

Pro military, no matter what:

Sounds like another Democrat got there hand’s on a gun !!

…

this cyclist had no business killing this dog. Charges should be brought against him immediately.

…

I would not blame or feel bad at all and I would even back the dog owner if he wanted to take fatal retaliation against the cyclist. It is just. What the hell is wrong with people that want to kill a dog like that…This soldier has one more mission to accomplish! …huh rah!

…

I hope the shooter gets hit by a car and suffers a long painful death

These views show a division between otherwise aligned interests. Most of the folks are likely “conservative” by political philosophy, perhaps a few libertarian. “Liberals” would abhor the gun itself.

I see this as a difference of opinion between “red staters.” I suspect the majority of both sides generally support the carrying of individual arms. Both likely support justifiable self-defense. Here’s the division: the first group seems to support self-defense regardless of the aggressors status. They find a man free to act when illegally threatened. Period. I’ll call these the people “freedom lovers.” The others support self-defense unless the aggressor is a member of the hallowed legions of the state. I’ll call them “government lovers.”

The government lovers are more extreme. Not only do they want the cyclist prosecuted, they want him dead – by a “long painful death” – for a situation they did not witness. But, to them, the facts do not matter. They are more worshipers than mere lovers of the state. The government and its uniformed agents (even dog agents) must not be challenged – ever.

The worship of the state may be increasingly seen in American churches, particularly Evangelical protestant churches. Government has seemingly replaced God for many. Much of this stems from an overzealous but false interpretation of Romans 13. Paul was only speaking to legitimate state authority – authority not acting against God’s Natural Law.

The Nazis, acting under Hitler’s “legal” orders, carried out the murder of dissidents and other war crimes. Were these too God-sanctioned acts of official authority? I think not.

The statists see it otherwise – at least concerning the American government.

If American soldiers kill innocents overseas, regardless of conditions, it’s acceptable collateral damage. If the police shoot a dog it’s okay, even if the police are breaking their own laws during the shooting. The same standard applies to police shootings of innocent civilians. No matter the cause, no matter the circumstance, the government is never at fault.

In the odd event the government is at odds with one of its servants the lovers will throw the individual under the bus without thought or hesitation. The false god of the almighty state suffers NO challenge.

This highlights both a disdain for individuality and a lack of logic among the parishioners of official authority.

For those of us who value freedom over safety this dichotomy and this particular example illustrates both a dire problem and a hazardous solution for liberty. It reminds me, for some reason, of the Melian Dialogue (with a twist).

A bit of archaic history: In 416 B.C. Athens was perhaps the most powerful military force in the known ancient world. The Athenians sought to subjugate the small, peaceful island state of Melos. The Athenian navy arrived at Melos. The dialogue went something like this:

Athens: “Surrender and join us.”

Melos: “No.”

The Athenians then proceeded to exterminate the Melians and seize their island.

download

Ruins of Melos. Google.

Many in the freedom camp rightfully seek to resist the evil of the modern state. However, as to outright martial confrontation, they see no hope. Maybe they are right. The American military and police state is almost powerful beyond measure. Outright rebellion would be almost impossible.

It may though be possible to indirectly oppose state oppression. An individual might be able to resist a single agent of the state and legally get away with it. Such resistance is still fraught with gravest danger. After such an incident the individual will be faced with resentment and hatred of the government’s unthinking masses. Hatred to the point of murder in revenge.

A safer if slower strategy might be to seek out those of the opposing camp and convert them to the truth of freedom. If they can think and reason this may be possible. They can be armed without an army. They can be safe and secure absent official structure. They can act as individuals. They can regard God as God and alone the Supreme source of authority.

All of this is open for consideration. What say you?

 

Guilty: Students, Professors, and the Public Get Schooled by Big Brother

16 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Amerika, anarchy, bombs, Courts, crime, double jeopardy, drugs, due process, evidence, evil, freedom, government, injustice, Islam, justice, Justice Department, law, police, police state, prisons, probable cause, rights, schools, Sir. William Blackstone, State, statism, students, teachers, Temple University, terrorists, The People

Several years ago, when I was actively practicing law, I held a discussion with a class of highly motivated and intelligent high school students (mostly upperclassmen).  My subject matter was the economic and cultural chaos wrought by the modern police state.  To my joy the students, nearly every one of them, were not only aware of the issues I covered but were deeply concerned about the world they would soon enter as adults.  Many embraced good old-fashioned anarchy as a positive response to the daily deluge of state-imposed evil.

Another thing which struck me, and which I mentioned to the young people, was how much their public, government high school resembled a prison – both in physical appearance and in operation.  Of this too they were all to aware.

It was a nice, new, modern facility in one of the trendiest parts of town.  It was where the money went when they didn’t want the private school bills.  The halls were clean, the grounds attractive, the people were pleasant.  However, I noticed things which seemed better suited for a correctional facility than a place of education.

Back then I regularly traveled around to various prisons and jails.  Most have a familiar layout and feel.  So too did this shiny new hall of academia.  The building was made of interlaced concrete blocks, bare of ornamentation – like a prison. The rectangular halls, with classrooms on either side, were laid out in wings or pods, fanning from a central hub – like a prison.  The central hub housed the administrative office in what looked like a tall glass control tower – like a prison. Near the doors were metal detectors (not in use that day) – like a prison.  The building was patrolled by armed officers – like a prison.

I had met some of these officers, all certified in law enforcement, before in professional settings.  I tried several cases stemming from “criminal” school misconduct.  The cases usually involved drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or other earth-destroying calamities.  Every single one of them was also devoid or things like probable cause, evidence, due process, and common sense.  I beat every single case.  And, it took quite the beating to win them.

Another ancient legal protection absent from modern Amerika, especially concerning students, is the prohibition against double jeopardy.  The theory, best summarized by Sir William Blackstone in the late eighteenth century was the “universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” (Emphasis mine.)  This theory is but legend now.  Our children often face triple jeopardy over things that are not crimes in the first place.  Here’s a real world example (possibly a combination of different cases, all real):

Johnny saw the school psychologist who suggested Johnny be prescribed mind-altering psychotropic drugs for his nonexistent attention deficit (in reality Johnny was just a boy).  Johnny’s doctor prescribed the narcotics, which otherwise would be considered illegal under state and federal law.  Johnny became semi-addicted.  The drugs caused his brain to slow down.  While giving him the appearance of being calm and receptive the dope also seriously impaired his health, to include his judgment. Johnny became a zombie.

Now, under the influence of these otherwise illegal drugs, practically mandated by his school, Johnny ran afoul of the school’s idiotic policy on otherwise illegal drugs.  School regulations dictate that any and all medications prescribed to a student must be held for the student’s use in the keeping of the school nurse. Johnny so kept his medicine in the school’s care and keeping.  Remember, the drugs in question diminished Johnny’s ability to rationalize and act appropriately.

One day, under the influence of these dangerous narcotics, Johnny forgot to drop off a few of his pills with the nurse.  He kept them in his book bag.  Mind you that Johnny never had any troubles whatsoever with his teachers, his classmates, or anyone else.

Out of the blue, without warning, probable cause, or a warrant, along came the local Sheriff’s department and their trusty drug-sniffing dog.  My students told me periodic drug sweeps were common in the prison…er..school.  The dog did his unlawful job well and promptly located Johnny’s pills.  The pills he was forced to take.  The pills that impaired his ability to reason.  The pills that caused him to forget to follow the procedures of the school that forced him to take the pills. Johnny was in trouble.

Jeopardy the first: Johnny had to appear at an administrative school hearing and faced expulsion or a year at the “alternative” school – like the supermax prison of the school world. Jeopardy the second, under asinine state law, as a minor with a driver’s license, Johnny’s possession of “drugs” put his license at risk and necessitated another administrative hearing before a state officer.  Third, and worst, Johnny faced a criminal proceeding and the possibility of jail time.

Luckily, Johnny had a good attorney and beat the triple threat.  He was back in class, soon weened himself off the school dope, and became a college honors student.  Others in the system are often not that lucky.  Maybe you know one of them. Maybe you were one of them.  Others have noticed this phenomenon and written about it.

Today John W. Whitehead wrote: Public School Students Are the New Inmates in the American Police State.

From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.

Most students are not so lucky.

By the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

Whitehead.

Whitehead notes the utterly insane militarization of the school police, who shouldn’t even exist in the first place:

In their zeal to crack down on guns and lock down the schools, these cheerleaders for police state tactics in the schools might also fail to mention the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors such as Taser International to equip these school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

Indeed, the transformation of hometown police departments into extensions of the military has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

As Whitehead states, the stories of abuse are “legion.” Students are being harassed, detained, and arrested for anything and everything.  One student was recently arrested for showing off his homemade clock at school.  Specifically, he was showing the clock off to his engineering teacher, who was duly impressed. Despite the fact the clock was obviously a time keeping device and impressed the shop teacher, its owner, a 14-year-old, was handcuffed and hauled away by police.

_85589317_4163c0e1-3c48-44ab-af0f-c53360632e81

Child Arrested for Chronometer Possession.  BBC.

The boy in question was a known Muslim and some feared his clock was a bomb. The criminal case was dismissed after the clock was verified to be a clock not a weapon.  I imagine the boy still faces school discipline in addition to the trauma he suffered during the incident.

This story almost makes sense.  Americans today face the threat of Islamic terror, largely because their government constantly stirs the Islamic world to the point of terrorism.  The same government then trains, equips and funds the known terrorists.  Worse, the government, almost out of malicious hate for the people, then import migrants from the areas where they have fostered hate and terror.  You can see this is definitely a problem.  But, it’s a problem with the state not with an aspiring young engineer.

Your government does not care, at all.  Frequently neither does the media nor the television-numbed people themselves.  Obey those laws!  Trust the state! Arrested means guilty, period!

William L. Anderson today recounts the horror story of the arrest and unlawful prosecution by the U.S. “Justice” Department of Xiaoxing Xi, Chairman of the physics department of Temple University, on espionage charges: Paranoia and Pernicious Prosecutions: The Department of Injustice Continues its War Against the Innocent.

The once-glorious standard of American criminal law – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – no longer exists de facto in U.S. courts, and especially in federal courts. Furthermore, federal intervention in certain legal areas – and especially when highly-politicized accusations of sexual assault are made – has made it extremely difficult for charged individuals to mount a defense, even when a charge is ludicrous on its face.

Let me further explain. Had there been a trial federal prosecutors would have presented their evidence and Dr. Xi would have had to then rebut with his evidence. However, as became painfully obvious, prosecutors had no evidence. Instead, they had “evidence” that on its face was untrue because they had the wrong material. One imagines that prosecutors and their “expert” witnesses would have given jurors a lot of scientific terminology that would have been confusing, and when jurors are confused, they usually end up siding with the prosecution, since most Americans believe that an indictment itself is “proof” of guilt.

It would have been up to Dr. Xi and his defense to prove that federal agents had presented the wrong set of blueprints. The feds would have falsely claimed that theirs was the correct set, even though by then they surely would have known they were presenting false claims. This last point is important, because it is a crime to knowingly present false information to a jury, but prosecutors never are disciplined for doing just that.

Anderson.

As Anderson notes, the feds dropped their case once it was obvious they had no evidence.  Xi pretty much lost everything – his reputation, his position, his peace of mind as an innocent American – all because of groundless charges brought without evidence.  Evidence is (or used to be) critical for a criminal case and conviction.  In my career I had similar criminal cases in federal and state courts fall apart due to a complete lack of evidence.  More on some of those in another column or two.

Many do not care about standards of evidence, due process or about the rights of people in general.  See: here, and here, and here.  That last “here” link is to a story I did about an innocent man shot by the police in Atlanta in his own home for no reason.  That narrative has played out yet again:

Fearing for their lives, California deputies opened fire on a man who was recording them with a cell phone from the garage of his home Friday, claiming they thought it was a gun.

Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies then searched the man’s home, finding no guns, before they apologized and went on their way.

Fortunately, Danny Sanchez survived the shooting, ending up with only bullet fragments in his legs, which he was having removed through surgery on Friday.

And although deputies apologized to Sanchez, they are pretty much unapologetic for their actions because, you know, officer safety.

 Carlos Miller, PINAC News.

Pitiful action by pitiful men.  Scared of a cellphone.  “Sorry we shot you.  Well, have a good day, sir!”  And the lemmings among you will still praise the deputies and chastise the victim.  “He should have obeyed the law!”  He did.  “You have to respect the police!”  No known disrespect even after they almost murdered him. Reality is doing a really poor job convincing the state-worshipers their’s is a false god.

For you, the sane, eye with distrust the machinations of government: its foreign policies; its immigration policies; all its policies; its schools; its courts; its police. All the laws and all the agents serve but the government and its owners. You and I are either obedient servants or criminal enemies of the state.

Note: This article was originally intended as two separate parts. As the subject matters – schools as prisons and more prosecutorial/police misconduct are related, I combined them, here.  This also promotes reading economy.  You’re welcome.

The Doves of Peace and the god of War

06 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Constitution, crime, freedom, government, law, military, Nazi germany, police, police state, Posse Comitatus Act, rights, The People, troops

Last week I posted a short bit about an odd, illegal police shooting in Atlanta. I caught a little flak from readers – mostly over the “innocent” nature of the subject home invasion and aggravated assault.

I saw the story as further proof of the American police state (no longer a theory nor “emerging”).

Nonetheless, I recognize some folks will support the police no matter what. Some have a love affair with government. Some see government as a god. These same people sometimes sport “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers and similar ornaments. Strangely, these same people usually view other parts of the state as dangerous – but they love the heavily armed parts. Weird, I know.

Such is the love and admiration for government troops that some will even take up arms to guard the very troops who supposedly guard the guards. Confusing, I realize. It gets even murkier when one considers that the endangering element from which the guards must be guarded was created by and imported by the government. No mind. The troops must be supported no matter what. Even when they, like the police, invade your property without cause and hold you at gun point. Read this:

Texas Air Force Personnel Detain Dove Hunters on Private Property

outdoorhub-texas-air-force-personnel-detain-dove-hunters-at-gunpoint-on-private-property-2015-09-03_15-20-26-880x503

Outdoorhub.com.

On Tuesday, the opening day of dove season in Texas, six hunters were detained by base personnel while traveling through private farmland adjacent to the base. The property was leased by the company that organized the hunt, Wildlife Systems, and had been used previously for hunting. Despite that, 17th Training Wing Security Forces entered the property and detained the hunting party—which reportedly also included the property owner.

…

“On a farm field that we lease that’s adjacent to the Base, surrounded by a security fence, they swarmed our group of 6 hunters, made them lay on their belly, spread eagle, for almost 30 minutes at gunpoint, two of them on asphalt in almost 100 degree temps and would not let them move, with our hunters pleading with them. One was laying in a red ant bed and they would not let him move.”

Base officials later stated that the hunters were detained because they were believed to be a threat, especially due to their proximity to the base. After it was determined that the hunters were only after doves, base officials said they were promptly released.

  • Outdoorhub.com.

I read the comments which accompanied this story. Roughly half were rightly indignant. The other half expressed unwaivering, religious support for the state’s criminal actors. In the clouded eyes of the latter group, dove hunting on your own land is akin to terrorism and worthy of assault or worse. Nothing must offend the (very sensitive) god-king.

I immediately thought this was a Posse Comitatus Act violation. The PCA forbids, under criminal penalties, the use of the federal military for civil law enforcement. Upon further consideration I realized this was just a case of law breaking, rather than enforcement. The MPs or “base personnel” are just guilty of trespassing and felony kidnapping.

They will not be published. One does not punish the god-king of the state. All those wacky laws, as applied to the government, are null and void. Even the revered Constitution has fallen:

“So you’re a Constitutionalist? We’ve had problems with this before!”

Long Valley, CA — Last month, the Feinman family was driving through a constitutionally questionable interstate checkpoint. This checkpoint is not on the US/Mexican border; it is along Highway 395N between California and Nevada.

When driving through these in-country checkpoints, you are not required to answer the agent’s questions (usually starting with “Are you a United States citizen?”). Nor are you required to consent to any searches.

Please note this story occurred in the United States not in Nazi Germany. The foolish family asserted their rights as free people and were promptly seized and arrested. The criminal state agents noted they had prior problems with Constitutionalists which means they have a problem with the Constitution – at least the parts concerning individual liberty.

To the sane among us it is patently obvious there is no legal protection in this country for us or our freedoms. The insane, the stupid, the craven will support the police, the troops, the government unto the bitter end. Something has to give.

The moral of the story is: support the government or they will invade your property, shoot your dog, and throw you to the ants.

 

Why Did They Shoot Me?

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

America, Atlanta, crime, freedom, government, Home invasion, Natural Law, Natural Rights, police, shooting, The People

Many years ago I was in court for various criminal hearings. During a break in the injustice I chatted with the court reporter. She was complaining about the assertions of the defendants of their several legal rights. This unnecessarily slowed the process in her opinion. “People have too many rights!” she screeched.

Too many rights. This sentiment is as common in modern American as it is atrocious. The good news for the rights haters is that our natural rights are steadily eroding. That’s bad news for the rest.

All across the country on almost a daily basis one may read of summary rights deprivation by the state – of the militarized police gunning down unarmed citizens. The haters still assert the police are protecting us from ourselves. If people don’t want to be killed, they shouldn’t break the law, they say. Obey the law. Too many rights. Sieg heil! and all that.

Consider, if you will, if you can, the following tale are martial woe:

On Monday evening Chris and Leah McKinley were enjoying a television movie in the living room of the Atlanta area home. Their family time was interrupted by gunshots in the kitchen. Uninvited, three criminal gang members broke into the kitchen and proceeded to shot the McKinley’s dog. When Chris investigated (unarmed), the intruders shot him also. For good measure the criminals shot one of their own too.

The burglar suffered a serious wound but should recover. Chris McKinley’s injury was, luckily, minor. The dog died in the kitchen.

The horrible but all too common twist to this story is that the McKinley’s attackers were police officers.

Shortly after 7:30 p.m. Monday, three DeKalb County police officers were dispatched to a burglary call on Boulderwoods Drive, just off Bouldercrest Road, about a mile south of I-20. Derek Perez, the man who made the 911 call, wrote on Facebook that he’d told police about a possible burglar outside of “the farthest house at the end of the street.”

The officers, however, stopped at Chris and Leah McKinley’s home — the second house on the street — because it matched the “physical description” given, according to a release from the GBI.

AJC.com.

The officers went to the rear of the home, onto the screened-in porch and through a “reportedly unlocked rear door,” the GBI said.

According to neighbors, that’s when Chris McKinley — who’d been watching a movie called “Serendipity” with his wife and 1-year-old — walked into the room with his dog. Authorities said two of the officers opened fire after they “encountered a dog.”

Id.

McKinley, 36, was shot in the leg, and his dog, a female boxer, was killed. One of the officers — identified Tuesday afternoon as Travis Jones — was shot in the hip by a colleague, the GBI said.

…

“Are we perfect?” DeKalb director of public safety Cedric Alexander said. “Absolutely not. But when we find a mistake, we own it. We own the fact that we were at the wrong house. We didn’t hide it. We didn’t mismanage it. We were at the wrong location based on information that was given to us.”

Id.

This is as close to a real apology as the police give for these incidents. They will not be prosecuted for their misdeeds. The taxpayers may suffer should the county pay some settlement to the McKinleys.

ChrisMcKinley

Chris McKinley, survivor. AJC.

Lloyd

One of McKinley’s assailants. AJC.

This shooting was mild compared to some others in the news lately. In other circumstances McKinley might have been killed. Or, he could have been framed with the officer’s shooting or some fictitious type of resisting or obstructing. Chris McKinley (and his dog) broke no laws. He did not “resist” the police. He did nothing wrong. He didn’t need protection from himself. He was minding his own business.

“Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?” McKinley asked a neighbor who came to his aid.

Why did they shoot Chris McKinley? Maybe it was a tragic mistake. Maybe it’s because he has too many rights.

Through The Roof: Overcoming An American Tragedy

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

America, Charleston, church, CIA, crime, Drug "War", drugs, Dylan Roof, freedom, government, guns, Jesus, Joe Arpaio, murder, Obama, people, police, race, State

**NOTE** This piece was written under the influence of pain killers and prescription strength muscle relaxers.  I really really hope it makes sense to you, my beloved readers.  ***

You, by now, have surely heard of Dylan Roof. A drug-addled, psychotic, racist piece of walking, talking sh*t in a form resembling man, Mr. Roof has done America a tremendous service in spite of his initial nefarious designs.

Earlier this week I had intended to write something about a different story out of South Georgia.  It also involved violence against the innocent although it was dispensed by a gang or group of deranged savages – the police.  Let me briefly touch on that story and how it relates to Dylan’s rampage.

Last year David Hooks and his wife, Teresa, were the victims of a burglary which resulted in the theft of their family vehicle.  Naturally, perhaps unwisely, they reported the crime to police.  The police, ever slow to solve property crimes, solved this one fast.  They apprehended the suspect and interviewed him.  Being a weasel, he said the drugs in his possession were found in the Hook’s stolen vehicle.  The police, being either incompetent or gullible, believed the thief and pursued a warrant against the Hooks.

During the night of September 24, 2014 the cops, attired in SWAT costumes, executed a search warrant at the Hooks residents.  Teresa, fearing the burglar(s) had returned called for David’s help.  David emerged with a shotgun and was promptly shot dead by the heavily armed police.  Of course, no drugs or other illegal items were found during the specious search.

Thus did the innocent David Hooks, 59, become the another causality (collateral damage) in the idiotic “war on drugs” in 21st Century America.

Business as usual, the police in Dublin are standing behind their actions.  No criminal charges will flow from this travesty of “justice.”  The Hook family will receive a settlement in their civil suit but this will not bring David back from the dead nor actively deter the police from future murders.  Is your War on Drugs really worth this?  This scenario unfolds every day.

What caught my eye about this story was the support generated for the Hook family. The hooks are white.  During a courthouse rally over this injustice many black civil rights activists from Atlanta showed up in support and outrage.  A disciple of the late Josea Williams stated that now white people would be brought into the struggle against police injustice.  The police shoot to death innocent people of all races almost every day.  It is an epidemic which is largely ignored outside of the black community, blacks being, historically, the primary victims of this “war.”

I rejoiced in that perhaps people would wake up and unite.  Then Dylan Roof came along.

On the evening of June 17, 2015 Dylan Roof walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. A prayer service was underway.  Dylan participated or at least sat quietly for an hour.  Dylan is white, the Church is predominantly black.

I have been the white face in a “black” church before.  I have never experienced the feeling of being the “white face” but rather a sensation of love and welcome as a brother of Christ.  I find black churches to be largely more Christian and less country club than many of their “white” counterparts.  Dylan no doubt experienced the same treatment.

Despite his kind, Christian treatment Dylan, without any provocation, shot and murdered nine church members – members who had just welcomed him with open arms.  Dylan is a white racist who hates blacks for no reason.

29CF116D00000578-3132670-image-a-11_1434819454215

Dylan Roof, intoxicated redneck f*ck, dishonors the Confederate Battle Flag, guns, America, and all humanity. UK Daily Mail.

Dylan’s plan was to start a race war between blacks and whites in America.  As sure as Jesus cast demons from out mens’ hearts, Dylan’s plan has backfired.  Matthew 4:10; Luke 11:14.

In his “manifesto” Dylan declared, “N****rs are stupid and violent…. Black people view everything through a racial lense [sic].”  To solve this problem Dylan acted in the most stupid and violent manner possible against the most helpless and decent people he could find.

You know what happened at the AME church.  You know about the manhunt and Dylan’s capture.  You have intense feelings about this crime as do I.  Initially I called for Dylan’s execution.  This came from my heart in spite of my distrust of the American legal system in general and the death penalty specifically.  Thus was the force of emotion.

I wrote on a friend’s Facebook posting the comment: “Hang. Him. High.” I then remembered what I had written about the death penalty in South Carolina only a short time before: “Gandalf answered [Frodo] masterfully: ‘Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.’”

My own inconsistency here illustrates several points.  The State, having surrendered its legitimacy, should never be in the position of deciding whether anyone lives or dies. Christians should not seek nor rejoice in the execution of any criminal.  Dylan, like so many modern mass murderers, was under the influence of psychotic drugs initially developed by the CIA in an effort to effect mass mind control (MK Ultra).

Many have been the vacuous debates about the motives and influences behind these murders.  President Obama roundaboutly blames guns in society.  Guns rights folks blame our debased criminal society.  Dylan’s use of and convictions for legal and illegal drugs are mentioned.  Suspicious people like me see a government angle to the story. In the end, Dylan Roof did this and bears responsibility.  Despite my rationalization and research I still (sadly) stand by my knee-jerk statement of “Hang him.”  God help me, Dylan and everybody else.

Roof appeared by television before a Magistrate Judge.  The case against him is astounding.

Capture

Dylan Roof faces SC justice.  USA Today.

Capture2

Charleston’s Mayor speaks about Roof and the death penalty.  USA Today.

As I said, Dylan’s plan for a war have backfired.  America has instead been brought together as rarely before.  Charleston is not Baltimore or Ferguson.  The country is galvanized against violence.  In Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has dispatched his mostly white civilian posse to guard black churches.

In Charleston victims of the crime have expressed forgiveness for Dylan in displays of love which nearly defy belief.  I mentioned my Facebook comments herein. Several of my FB friends have linked the following story:

10527525_10153493366453729_2178589435404328584_n

“We are all Sandlappers.”  Facebook/Lauren’s County Sheriff’s Department.

A man tracked down Dylan via Facebook and posted the following on his page:

Screen-Shot-2015-06-18-at-11.06.06-AM

Marcus Stanley is a much bigger man than I. IJReview.

Screen-Shot-2015-06-18-at-11.21.01-AM

Marcus Stanley (R), 10 feet tall and made of gold.

SSRI drugs may play a part in the majority of modern American mass murders. However, the forgiveness and togetherness brought about by Dylan Roof are unprecedented.

While writing this story I interviewed two black gentlemen on their thoughts. Tito, a cigar brother, said, “Where we are as a country is sad.”  “In God’s house to commit those crimes is sad.”

Tito’s visiting friend, Gerard Ousely, of Durham, N.C. said: “Our country has been polarized.  In a sad state of affairs, we’re letting the minority run the majority.” He went on: “Nine people got killed behind hatred.”  “People die because of poor police tactics, racism, hatred, it’s just ridiculous.” “We the majority need to get behind what’s right.”

The time has come to stand together against evil, whether from the State or from each other.  Join the majority, join what is right.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Perrin Lovett

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

Perrin Lovett at:

Perrin on Geopolitical Affairs:

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 42 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.