No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law
-US Constitution, amendment III-
Of course our bill of rights is always being twisted by the perpetual state of hyperbole according to which we're always at war
with drugs, poverty, crime, fear and moral decay. Whether or not Osama
Bin Laden hated us for what we're told is our 'freedom,' his attack on
New York has been a gold mine for authoritarianism and the security
state. Our conflict with Islamic terrorists has encouraged, as many
'paranoids' like me have warned, authorities of all types to trample all
over our constitutional guarantees, whether it be searches and seizures
without probable cause or, the right to confront our accusers, the
right to a speedy trial, to know the charges against us and believe it
or not, the right to be free from the quartering of troops in private
homes.
One doesn't hear of many court cases involving the Third Amendment
although it was important enough to the American colonists and it's
been a basis of the implied right to privacy that the Roe Vs. Wade
decision is based upon. Back in 1965 Justice William O. Douglas opined the amendment's implication that " an individual's home should be free from agents of the state" That followed the 1952 decision that inferred from the third amendment, the framer's intent: "to constrain executive power even during wartime."
As
far as I know, there is no law allowing a police department to
commandeer one's residence and quarter policemen there in order to
conduct surveillance to see if there was domestic violence going on next
door and gather evidence thereof. If there is, I would suspect it would
run afoul of the third amendment, yet so confident were the suburban
Las Vegas police that they could do any damned thing they wanted, that
they blew open one Henderson, Nevada resident's front door with a
battering ram, screaming obscenities at the unarmed man in his living
room as the police are wont to do, pointing firearms at Anthony Mitchell
whom they addressed as "asshole," forcing him to grovel before them on
the floor while they fired several rounds of painful but non-lethal
shotgun ammunition at him and his dog at point blank range
and demanding that they occupy his house. As though this weren't
enough, they continued on to occupy the victim's parent's house on the
same street, rummaging, ransacking and arresting and forcibly removing
everyone in manacles.
Oh it gets worse, but you can read about it yourself
-- violations of the third, fourth and 14th amendments and of every
principle of justice common to civilized societies. It's not unique and
it may wind up in the same limbo or wind up in some dark corner of
oblivion as the many cases I've read over the years where police have
entered the wrong house and murdered the occupants who were trying to
defend themselves against what they thought, perhaps correctly, were
armed invaders.
For all the public knows in the age of cringing cowardice and lapdog obedience, an age where liberty be damned, when you can be locked up indefinitely without charges, where your possessions can be searched, where you can be beaten, tortured, tazed, roughed up and have your home and possessions trashed by brutal, obscenity-screaming, uniformed thugs without any recourse -- where for all the public is likely to know or hear in the 'reality show' media, what happened in Vegas never happened at all or at best might be an uninteresting crawl beneath the Snowden Story, or the Zimmerman story or some celebrity scandal or other Fox News fabrication.
So
you want to tell me an armed citizen is a ridiculous idea, that the
government can't be opposed by force and won't ever need to be? Yes, I
know, talk is cheap, but when to talk back to the police results in
things that would make the KGB or the Gestapo veterans long for the good
old days, what's a man to do? How does the law and how does that
blindfolded lady with the scales treat the man who defends his home
against armed and rabid berserkers with no regard for the law or human
life? How does a man decide whether it's worth taking up arms when the
law fails and nobody cares - decide between dying with dignity and
groveling on the floor of his own home while he and his family and his
dog are being shot and beaten and robbed and hauled away in chains.
If any of the Mitchells had pulled a gun they would probably be dead and have themselves portrayed as a loose cannon who decided to do "suicide by cop".
ReplyDeleteYou and I are both old enough to know that throwing gasoline on a fire will not extinguish the flames.
Cops are already armed to the teeth, at least partially as a response to having to deal with criminals who have and use semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, exotic ammunition, explosives and body armor. If they are dealing with a fully armed citizenry they will go to squad and crew weaponry, close air support and drones.
The history of warfare and civil society proves VERY conclusively that uparming citizens does not result in more peaceable societies.
I'm fully aware of that and I remember more than one instance of this having happened. I do think peaceable societies are that way for so many other reasons than the number of weapons that your assertion simply illustrates your distaste for weapons.
ReplyDeleteWas the Warsaw Ghetto made more peaceable by the presence of a few rusty guns? No, but they held off the might of the German military long enough to illustrate something Police states are peaceable. Police states are largely safe.
No, I'm not actually suggesting that we all arm ourselves against the government. I'm just telling you what I might do if rogue policemen attacked my family.
If there is a solution to this sort of thing it's in the courts, but there won't be unless the media chooses to inform us, unless the public is sufficiently outraged, but mostly until we stop being such timorous safety sheep that we let authoritarianism sell itself as our benefactor.
Germany was the most peaceable, educated and liberal of countries for a while and it didn't fall to the Nazis because the public was armed. They weren't.
Oh and you and I are old enough to know that walking away from the fire doesn't extinguish it either. I hope the court makes an example out of these rogues but I'm also old enough to fear it won't.
DeleteWell said Capt. VERY Well said. But what do I know, I'm the irrational one. Just ask democommie, the all knowing.
DeleteLets's not bait each other into another hissy.
DeleteSuffice to say, when supposed officers of the law abuse the law and unlawfully bully and terrorize law-abiding citizens, then the system is broken. I certainly hope the Mitchell family prevails in their lawsuit, receives a substantial punitive damages claim, and succeeds in having those Henderson police officers fired and prosecuted. Inasmuch as a Constitutional issue is also a Federal matter, I hope the DOJ investigates.
Apparently, the Henderson incident is by no means isolated but more widespread than we thought. Here is another story involving the use of a SWAT team that invaded the house of a mayor in Maryland (story here). In this incident, the family dogs were killed, and the evidence against the mayor was planted by law enforcement. No apologies, no attempt to make amends, merely self-justifying statements by officious officials, and, YES, another lawsuit settled for an undisclosed sum (too bad).
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's the Seattle case where the cops came through the door shooting - shot a man 16 times. A miracle he survived, if you can call it that. Of course it was the wrong man. Cops claimed he was reaching for a gun. There was no gun. If there had been no witnesses ( his roommate was there) I'm sure a gun would have been provided.
DeleteHe'll never be the same, but he's suing for 20 million and will probably get it, but it's hardly justice and the police have yet to admit wrongdoing. Rodney King -- that deaf guy shot to pieces in New York when reaching for his wallet, etc, etc. I read these stories all the time.
I remember that story and I remember far too many similar incidents way back as far as the 1960's and I think it's damn rare that the scofflaw cops get prosecuted. There's always the drop gun and the planted evidence and the destroyed or tampered evidence and the perjury and the reluctance of prosecutors to press charges. Too often the victims are dead and if not their lives are totally ruined in the effort to find justice.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be a monument in Chicago honoring the cops killed by an an unidentified bomber in 1886. Cops who were bashing heads to break up a labor rally. Nobody memorialized the innocents who were mowed down by police bullets or the innocents who were hanged for having spoken there. Authority writes the history and propagandizes our children into accepting lies as truth.
The public doesn't care that much because we're trained to become emotional only when the Pavlovian bell is rung by the media. The public used to care -- a lot -- and colonial abuses of English law spurred our revolution despite what the tea-rabble would like you to believe. The English constitution opposed taxation without representation already and forbade many other things Georgie III did anyway. People used to care that the government wasn't obeying the law. Now we only care about fake scandals and celebrity gossip and we see the law as the enemy, not as the savior.
Yeah, I get cheap shots about how the cops risk their lives for us and of course they do, but holding them to at least as high a standard as they hold us and perhaps more as they have the ability to carry military weapons and the ability to abuse their power so fatally is necessary in my opinion.
But in any case the requirement to obey abjectly and immediately, to acquiesce silently as your family is abused, your dog shot, your wife humiliated or be killed isn't the sort of thing we think about in our patriotic moments when we talk as though we invented freedom and are the sole owners thereof. We're apparently comfortable with the widespread practice of police screaming obscenities and waving weapons like Viking Berserkers for anything including traffic offenses and there's no need for it and no room for it in the kind of country we pretend to be but aren't.
I can blame some of it on Republicans and their decades of "law and order" propaganda, but I can blame a lot of it on the spirit of submission that's infected liberal rhetoric as far back as the Unilateral Disarmament idiocy of the early cold war years.
My biggest fear for this country is that it will become a police state and that colors my arguments against the incessant clamor about an increasing level of danger that doesn't exist -- against the pervasive "even if one life is saved" fallacies, against prior restraints and all the other attempts to treat us as criminals until proven otherwise, to justify curtailing freedom in the name of safety. You've heard it before: the only completely safe state is a police state.
I blame Liberals for buying into authoritarianism and the culture of fear that supports it. Not only because it's the gateway to tyranny, but because doing so is illiberal by definition and indeed too many of us calling ourselves such aren't liberal at all, but just cringing cowards and puling lackwits who don't deserve liberty.
Capt. I personally want to thank you for your final paragraph. Truer words I have not heard from a liberal since my ninth grade literature teacher, who was liberal, gave me a copy of Anthem. The rest is history.
Delete