Police Brutality, and the Bunk Premise at its Core
On the bunk philosophical premise of preemption as one of the main upholding factors behind police brutality.
Eric Garner put in a choke-hold by a cop that led to his death, for not paying cigarette taxes (which supposedly may harm society, and so "justifies" such violence against him).
A father tazed and arrested by a Louisiana cop when he tried to rescue his infant son from a house fire, and the boy died as a result.
San Antonio police tazing an asthmatic man because he wouldn't get on his stomach as commanded (because he couldn't breath); they killed him too.
The examples of police/government brutality and murder are countless and will keep coming as long as there is unnatural/false authority and power given to the few, who absurdly are considered of a higher moral order than the "ordinary" woman or man, and so have the "right" to do all kinds of harm to others. We are supposed to have infinite faith in police being morally superior to ourselves, just as Obama says we should trust other officials with all their spying, drone assassinations, black-ops and so on. Why? Why should I trust? History and current reality don't give me any reason to. More fundamentally, why are we FORCED to trust them? Are we to assume these people are faultless angels, that they are Divine? "In God We Trust" says the dollar bill, yet it is not God(dess)/Tao that we are told to really trust, it is our parental "official" overlords, who by self-perceived divine right (nowadays called "the legitimate political process") can engage in pre-emptive attacks against anyone, anytime, forever. This nonsense is not safety, it's just tyranny.
The underlying premise that statists/controllers operate on is preemptive attack. They will give examples of others doing bad things as "justification" for doing something bad to you, even if you haven't actually done anything bad. This is false equivalency. Cops think they can legitimately give you tickets for driving your car at a certain speed, or even for jaywalking, based on the premise of preemption, saying that this may cause harm, so they have the right to harm you first. The seemingly reasonable cases are used as the foundation for the unreasonable, e.g. a cop shooting an unarmed black man because he appeared to be a threat. They operate on assumption, on unreality; in other words, on lies. This violence based on lies is considered ultimately of satanic affiliation by some, and I wouldn't argue against that. We must reject the seemingly reasonable (nonviolent individuals being interrogated, searched and stopped at borders, adults and children being irradiated and molested at airports, people fined or arrested for being in a park at night or having a dog off-leash in a park, drinking or smoking marijuana in public, not wearing your seat belt, driving fast, jaywalking, etc.) if we are ever going to do away with the obviously unreasonable (e.g. cops killing unarmed people, military forces/CIA/etc. preemptively invading foreign nations and killing people deemed "threats," etc.). Once the premise of preemptive attack is accepted in society, it will immediately (and continually) be used for tyrannical/authoritarian/imperialist/evil purposes.
The crucial insight to remember is that preemptive attack, in any form, is never truly reasonable, it's never completely rational and ethical. If someone wants to suggest to me to not jaywalk, drive fast, etc., and give me information/history to back up their suggestion, that's perfectly fine. But when a threat of aggression for noncompliance or immediate act of aggression follows noncompliance with their suggestion, then they have committed an immoral act, they have engaged in a preemptive attack, and preemptive attack is never legitimate. Self-defense is legitimate though; if I was actually harming someone else, then using force to stop me would be legitimate, but that is use of force to defend against aggression that has already commenced. To say you can commit violence against me now because I may harm others in the future is totally bunk and immoral, it's ultimately a delusion that society has been indoctrinated to believe in. Take note of it in whatever form it arises, and fully reject it. Then a more just and peaceful society will actually be possible.
The underlying assumption that supposedly justifies government officials doing things that "citizens" can't (like preemptive spying, kidnapping/arresting, enslaving/imprisoning, killing) is that they are superior, just as the Nazis thought they were superior. Ego-maniacs, racists and control-freaks can't be eliminated, but the positions of power that make them much more dangerous and destructive can, and should be, eliminated. Anarchism = more Peace & Justice, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, like that spewed in the movie The Purge, meant to reinforce the belief that we need tyrants to protect us from our neighbors. "Fear thy neighbor, and obey and trust thy government with all of your heart, and all of your mind, and all of your soul" is the religion of statism, which is the complete opposite of a Liberation Theology, it's a dead end road, built by violence, that furthers more violence.
And just to clarify to those that may misconstrue my words, I'm not saying cops and politicians never help anyone at all, they can be good intentioned people and can be somewhat helpful to others; what I'm saying is that those positions of unnatural power/authority are always sources of abuse and destruction that undermine personal freedom, sovereignty, and dignity; in other words they ultimately do more harm than good, by being instruments of a violent system that is a form of slavery, and slavery is completely bad, it's evil, and tolerating it at all always has unavoidable destructive consequences, it's karmic/natural law. The good intentions of those wanting to help others can be exercised without the slavery of social-systems as their vehicle, it can instead be done within an egalitarian society of sovereign individuals, who dialogue and cooperate with one another, and use self-defense when necessary. The very reason given as justification for the false authority of state officials, that "some people are bad and we need to protect ourselves from them," is exactly the reason why we should do away with those positions of power! Have we ever been able to keep bad people out of politics?! Even people who enter it with good intentions get corrupted by the evilness of the system and end up turning bad; it's not reformable. People naturally help each other without a centralized authority, and as in the tragic case mentioned above with the man who was violently stopped by an "authority" figure from saving his own son, we are even restrained from helping each other by authoritarian systems. Other examples of that include feeding the homeless being made illegal, etc. So these positions of false power are destructive on multiple fronts, they are a lose-lose.
[To hear more about how social-systems engage in preemptive attack all the time via taxation, and land/water control/cost, please see the top posts on https://colindonoghue.wordpress.com]
Here's another example of sickening preemptive attack by police:
"Miami-Dade Police Choke Black Teenager Because He Was Giving Them "Dehumanizing Stares"
By Kyle Munzenrieder Wed., May 29 2013
[article excerpts below]
Fourteen-year-old Tremaine McMillian didn't threaten police. He didn't attack them. He wasn't armed. All the black teenager did was appear threatening by shooting Miami-Dade police officers a few "dehumanizing stares," and that was apparently enough for the officers to decide to slam him against the ground and put him in a chokehold.
During Memorial Day weekend, McMillian was rough-housing with another teenager on the sand. Police approached the teen on an ATV and told him that wasn't acceptable behavior. They asked him where his parents were, but MicMillian attempted to walk away. The officer jumped off the ATV, and tried to physically restrain the teen. According to CBS Miami, police say the 14-year-old kid gave them "'dehumanizing stares,' clenched his fists and appeared threatening."
Zabaleta claims with a straight face that flailing one's arms and clenching one's fists constitutes a threat, and is not swayed by McMillian's insistence that all he was doing with his arms were carrying a puppy.
"At that point we are not concerned with a puppy," Zabaleta told the station. "We are concerned with the threat to the officer."
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion