An excellent, fiery, forceful piece! Patty
From Edward Dunnigan (ebd@corecomm.NET) I wrote this a few days ago. After reading your stuff, you seem like someone who might be interested in it.--Ed
ALBANY, N.Y. (APBnews.com) -- Four white New York City police officers today were acquitted of all charges in the shooting death of black immigrant Amadou Diallo, whom they mistakenly gunned down last year in the vestibule of his home.
So Where Do We Draw the Line?
By Edward Dunnigan
If Amadou Diallo's death did nothing else, it served to give us a glimpse of just what our true status is in this nation; we are slaves and the men and women of the law enforcement community are our overseers. Overseers that have been given government sanction to do with us as they see fit so long as the powers of the state are enhanced.
For those that have lived in a cave for the last year, Amadou Diallo was the West African immigrant that died as a result of nineteen gunshot wounds inflicted upon him by the NYPD Special Crimes Unit. That is, he was hit by nineteen of the forty-one shots fired at him. Where the other twenty-two rounds went has not been revealed.
The official line is that he wouldn't obey the officers' demands that he raise his hands and that he made a 'furtive movement' resulting in the police opening fire upon him. Of course, we'll never hear the other side of the story because the only person that could supply an opposing viewpoint is dead.
Subsequently, a jury found that the four policemen in question were not guilty of any of the charges against them. The people have spoken and justice is served right?
Wrong.
If anything, the verdict itself indicates just how much we've been conditioned to accept the yoke of slavery, that we've been desensitized to the encroachment on our individual liberties. The statists have no compunction whatsoever in trampling The Bill of Rights before our eyes and using The Constitution to wipe up the blood after the wet work is done. Anymore, they don't even attempt to conceal their blatant disregard for the lives of the citizenry. Why should they? By virtue of an unholy alliance between the state and the Old Media, they have mobs of reporters that are willing to promote the party line that those that resist are the enemy of the people, that the best way to live is to go along to get along.
Don't believe it? I think that a simple examination of recent history will bear me out.
Think about it, just a mere ten or twelve years ago, police departments nationwide were lobbying to replace their well worn six shot revolvers with the latest and greatest in high capacity nine-millimeters so as to be on a par with assault-rifle-toting drug gangs. Warnings from old school officers that increased magazine capacity would lead to more shots fired, more innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire and more officer injuries due to 'friendly fire' fell on deaf ears. Never mind that FBI studies determined that less than one percent of all violent crimes were committed with 'assault weapons' the propagandists reported that there was a WAR going on out there and the police needed to be loaded for bear.
At the same time, many of the same people lobbying for the re-arming of our police (i.e. Diane Feinstein) were also doing their level best to eliminate the private ownership of semi-automatic firearms in the hands of the citizenry. While they themselves were surrounded by armed bodyguards paid for with the plunder extorted from the masses (known as taxes), we were being convinced that for us to arm ourselves and defend ourselves was to be paranoid and militant.
Should someone decide to make a stand and resist, the media demonized him or her until the public was willing to accept any atrocity committed against them in the name of retribution. It still goes on every day. The man or woman wearing the badge is no longer a symbol of protection. The days of the beat cop that was a known quantity in your neighborhood have been replaced by an occupying army of stormtroopers armed with automatic weapons, body armor and legions of comrades. All of this funded with money stolen by the state, and unleashed on those that earned it.
Review how the government reacted when Randy Weaver and family took exception to having fourteen year old Sammy killed and had the audacity to shoot back, killing one of the Marshals in return.
Those that bothered themselves to watch the news were subjected to news reports that described the situation as a 'stand-off' and the people inside of the Weaver family's cabin were 'white separatists' who were 'holding out'. As if the Weavers had created the circumstances that found them surrounded, and besieged by the newly refitted FBI.
When it finally came out that the Weavers' plight had been brought about as a result of entrapment by the ATF, barely a word was broadcast or printed about it. When the Attorney General of Idaho attempted to bring the perpetrators of the murder of Vicki Weaver to justice, the FBI evoked the Sovereign Immunity rule and the case was closed.
After all, they were just following orders.
Skip forward another year or so and we find the state once again exercising its authority. This time the object of their attention was an 'extremist cult' whose crime consisted of resisting when a band of heavily armed, jack-booted thugs broke into their dwelling and began shooting. We were told that they had an 'arsenal' inside of their 'compound'. Then as we watched, all sorts of crimes were ascribed to these 'religious wackos'. There were charges of child molestation, drug abuse and sales, polygamy and of course, the possession of automatic weapons. The ultimate goal, according to the agents of the state, was to save the children. The Forces of Benevolent Immolation accomplished this by setting fire to the buildings that the children were in, and gunning down anyone that tried to escape the conflagration. Afterward, all evidence was spirited away and the entire area was bulldozed.
When the clamor died down, there was a hearing. At no time did the state produce a single shred of evidence to support their charges about machineguns, drug use or drug sales. The one witness that supported their charge of child molestation was later discredited.
When the surviving Branch Davidians were tried for their part in the shooting of four ATF agents, a jury found them not guilty. The judge overturned the verdict and sent them to prison anyway. The statists will not tolerate resistance and any that do resist will be made an example of.
When riots broke out in protest of the verdict handed down on the officers charged with brutalizing Rodney King, the media was quick to cite the need for more law enforcement even though the police had left the citizens of that area to their fate and retreated off of the streets! There was no need for the statists to restore order; the riot had no effect on the neighborhoods where they resided. In some quarters, there was no need for police by those people that had armed themselves. Evidence of this personal initiative was displayed on the news nationwide. Later, these same film clips were used by law enforcement to track down and prosecute those that had had the wherewithal to protect their property. Statists will not tolerate individual initiative and those that exhibit it will also be made an example of.
If any of the useful fools in law enforcement are too blatant in their use of state authority, one of their numbers is sacrificed in a token gesture to appease the masses. In the Final chapter of the Rodney King case, the offending officers were tried and convicted of violating King's civil rights, King himself was awarded a sizable settlement and the populace was lulled back to unconsciousness.
Just recently in LA's Rampart Division, the officer that exposed the misdeeds of the LAPD in that area (crimes ranging from perjury to murder) was himself sentenced to five years in prison, along with the mayor's promise that there will be an investigation. Once again, the people go to sleep.
That is why the verdict of 'not guilty' in the case of the four officers that shot Amadou Diallo should not come as a surprise to anyone. In a way it is refreshing. The facade of 'justice for all' has finally been stripped away to reveal the undeniable, awful truth that we are no longer free. This should take noone by surprise. The statists pay no attention to those that cry out for liberty because they do not fear us. They do not fear us because they know that when it comes right down to it, we are too few, too isolated and too risk averse to be effective.
Oh, we adorn ourselves with the accoutrements of freedom; newspapers, firearms, computers, organizations and discussion groups that drone on endlessly about The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. We comfort ourselves and pretend that we make our stand by voting, or by writing letters to the editor of our local newspaper. And when laws that further limit our individual freedom are passed anyway, we shrug our shoulders and promise to fight harder next time around. On that terrible day when they finally drop any pretense of Constitutionality and begin the confiscation of those accoutrements, undoubtedly there will be that stalwart few that go out in a blaze of glory, but for the most part, the Leviathan will find whimpering masses on their knees waiting to be chained to one another.
It's not surprising. When the statists are incensed to take action, they are a fearful force indeed. To even the staunchest libertarian, the knowledge that to resist the tyranny that has become so pervasive in our society would result in our having to face overwhelming force, leaves us quaking in our boots. The idea of those jack-booted thugs waving the muzzles of their assault weapons in the faces of our loved ones causes us to recoil in horror. Our libertarian fervor melts away when confronted with the ugly reality of imprisonment or death. Very few are willing to resist tyranny because fighting for liberty requires sacrifice. More than likely, that person would be forced to stand alone and face the full rage of The Leviathan, resulting in his or her blood being spilled to little or no good result. What is the answer? When DO we draw the line?
Amadou Diallo didn't even get to ask the question.