The problem isn’t that I haven’t had anything to write about.  Quite the contrary: I’ve had too much to write about.  The problem is that what I’ve had to write about made me so angry that I decided to try to cool down a bit first.

You see, the thing is, I hate a great number of you.  You self-righteous, pompous, law-and-order-until-the-cops-come-after-me-or-mine types.  Some of my family members are like that and, frankly, I think I’m just going to start disowning them.  Just as I disown the rest of you who are like that.  You’re the reason I believe that the rest of us should all carry weapons strapped to our waists, or in shoulder holsters, or anywhere else whence we can quickly retrieve them when we run into you.

Except, I don’t really feel that way, because if I did, that would make me just like you.

For example — and this is when I really knew I hated you — the other day there was a video posted showing a police officer punching a 17-year-old girl in the face.  The officer apparently wanted to stop a girl from jaywalking.  According to some pin-headed pundit, the girl refused to stop when he ordered her to do so and the officer grabbed her arm, whereupon she tensed up and her friend pushed the officer.  Thus, the officer was justified for punching her friend in the face.

I’m sorry, but had I been there, that would have been the end of it for either the officer, or for me.  I watched people circling and voicing their outrage to the officer and the only thing I could think of is “what the fuck are you standing there for?!”  In my opinion, the crowd should have taken that officer down the minute they saw him punch that girl.

Tony Norman writes,

As for the two females, they were clearly in the wrong, especially the young woman who shoved the officer. One of the first things loving parents tell their children as they enter their teen years is never to put their hands on an officer under any circumstance.

If I had children right now, I’d be sending them to classes where they could learn hand-to-hand combat and the fastest way to take down an out-of-control police officer.  Contrary to what Norman says, I think parents should start teaching their children how to lay hands on them in the way that will end any confrontation the quickest.

And I’m sorry, law-and-order types, but one reason more people are resisting the police is that the police have earned this response. I realize that it’s still possible for white people throughout the United States to remain largely ignorant of the extent of police misconduct: it’s still the case that the police treat white people differently than they treat everyone else.  It’s still possible for white people to wonder aloud, “What’s police brutality?”

As Bob Herbert points out,

If the police officers were treating white middle-class or wealthy individuals this way [the way they treat non-whites], the movers and shakers in this town would be apoplectic. The mayor would be called to account in an atmosphere of thunderous outrage, and the police commissioner would be gone.

Things are changing, though, as the police expand their mistreatment of non-whites to include more whites.  You only have to stop ignoring stories like this one, or this one, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this — I could, quite literally, go on all day.  Hell, just watch this for awhile.

And it’s not just because — as in England — the police are trying to balance out their racism by hitting up more white people.

The sad reality is that the police simply feel that they have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.  Sometimes it’s because they actually saw someone do something wrong, but then the police overreact.  Sometimes, it’s simply an unsubstantiated hunch that someone might be doing something wrong and then,as noted in this comment to a story of an attack by police on a viola player for carrying a can of Mountain Dew in his pants…

…their initial suspicion of criminal activity [results] in no charges. All of the charges bought against the student come exclusively from the encounter with police.

Sometimes it just because they think a crime might occur. Maybe. I mean, there’s a chance, isn’t there?

Regardless of the reason, the fact of the matter is that our police force is quite simply out of control. (You really want to watch that entire video and listen to the foreign commentary.  This is how badly we look to other police states.)  This is why I’ve begun to tell clients that the only way to obtain justice — and I warn them it could dramatically alter or end their lives, but it is the only chance at justice — is to fight back.

You certainly can’t get it in the courts. Courts today — not that there wasn’t an undercurrent of this in the past — wholly support those in power over those without power.  And the best way to do that is by condoning and even encouraging a police state.  So that is what they now do.

But too many of you believe that all this is okay.  Whatever the police want, the police should get.  (Until they come for you.)

So I’ve been having a little anger management problem that interferes with my ability to entertain — or even enlighten — you through my writing.

I’m more about helping to start the Revolution.

I’ve been resistant to the idea of owning a gun.  I’ll be frank: guns scare me.  When I was a kid, my father taught me to shoot one, but seeing what a gun could do just made me realize I wanted to be far away from them and have nothing to do with them.

Unfortunately, the type of gun I really need is not available to me, because I live in a Nation of Laws which, when it isn’t busy violating it, simply ignores its own Constitution.

Because what I really need is a weapon that will allow me to fight my own government, and they have some pretty damn big guns.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution notes:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is routinely infringed.  By “law.”  In California, for example, the people are currently allowed to bear Arms, but since the Second Amendment forgot to expressly mention the ammunition that goes with it, the guns must be unloaded. A lot of good being able to bear unloaded Arms does.

Of course, when the Revolution starts, California can go fuck itself.

At any rate, as Scott Greenfield, Radley Balko, Jeff Gamso, Norm Pattis, Robert Guest and Brian Tannebaum have done, so do I bring you this disgusting video:

The police in the video followed the “accepted procedure” of our courts, announcing themselves (under cover of darkness) giving the occupants a few seconds to rouse themselves before busting down the door, rushing in and shooting the family dog.  Apparently, the dog must have refused to comply with their orders even after being shot, because after a brief pause several more shots are fired into the dog, silencing its screeches of pain.

Fortunately, they appear to have missed the children.

The officers are dressed in exactly the type of outfit that would have roused George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Elbridge Gerry and the thousands of other Founders of our nation to go to war against their government.  And anyone who doesn’t think these men would go to war against the government under circumstances like we face today simply doesn’t know much about the history of this country.

This is one reason the government wants to ensure that you do not exercise your right to bear arms.

George Washington, for example, reportedly said:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.

In actuality, there is no reliable evidence that Washington made this statement.  But he should have.  Because it’s true.  “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.” They are our “liberty teeth” intended to protect us against our own government. The reason we have the right to bear arms is in case we need to shoot back at our own government.  This is why the right belongs to “the people” as the right of each one of us.

Don’t believe me?  You don’t think the Founders thought we might need to protect ourselves from our own government?  They frequently made comments about the fact that one thing that made America different, and unlikely to fall to a tyrannical government, was the fact that Americans own guns.

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46, that people had nothing to fear from the federal government partly because of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation….”¹

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, said,

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.²

And Jefferson also said, in that same letter,

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.³

Even Noah Webster, of Merriam-Webster (yes, the dictionary) fame, said,

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme Power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.⁴

In 1873 — admittedly now taking us out of the realm of the Founders — a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Story, wrote that:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.⁵

Story was, however, citing Tucker — as would our current Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller — and Tucker was writing in 1803, shortly after the founding of the United States.  And while I can’t say the same for our current Supreme Court, Tucker was no nutcase.  In a time when integrity, intelligence and honor were still the best guarantee of success, he was a judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and later the United States District Court in Virginia.

But, again, views like these are the reason why our government wants to take away our right to own weapons, or, in the alternative, wishes to limit the types of weapons we can own.  The Founders, by the way, talked about that, too.  They knew that tyrannical governments first work to disarm their citizens.  Today, that starts by making sure the weapons available to us are not nearly as powerful as the ones the government uses to shoot our dogs.

This move needs to be resisted politically.  We can vote out any politicians who try to limit our right to own weapons powerful enough to protect us against them.  For as Rich Mason of Tennessee put it,

If the arms of the soldiers of this era are automatic rifles, machine guns and sub-machine guns then it is the right, in fact the obligation, for the citizens of this country to possess such arms themselves. It is laughable on its face, as some have stated, that the Second Amendment would grant to us the right to only have flintlocks or muskets, such weapons as were in use at the time of our countries founding, to defend ourselves against an armed force raised by the government to oppress us, or to defend against an invading enemy. … If anything, we have the rights to limit the governments use of technology, not the other way around.⁶

And, frankly, to those apologists for the police who frequent this site, there is no excuse for the increasing militarization of our police force and for their willingness to shoot defenseless citizens and their puppies.

I echo the words of Norm Pattis:

So if you are thinking about bursting into my home with or without a warrant, be forewarned: Shoot to kill my dogs, and I will shoot to kill you. Period.

And if anyone has a recommendation on a good weapon, drop me an email.  Unfortunately, for now — I am an attorney until the Revolution starts, after all — I’m looking for one that’s powerful, but strictly legal.  Still, it needs to be a good one: Fresno’s police department is fond of shooting citizens, as well as dogs.

Oh, yeah, in fairness I think I have to mention: the little “war on drugs” involving the cops who busted down the Missouri family’s door and shot what I understand was a Corgi were ultimately able to charge the homeowner with misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

That’s right: misdemeanor.

1. The Federalist Papers, No. 46, at p. 296 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter, ed., Signet Classic 2003).
2. Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
3. Jefferson, supra, letter to William Stephens Smith.
4. Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford ed., 1888) 25, 56.
5. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States Before the Adoption of the Constitution (1873) p. 620.  Story cited to 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 299 for this.  It is worth noting that in the recent United States Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2805 [171 L.Ed.2d 637] cited this same quote from St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Legal Commentaries in support of its opinion that the right to bear arms was personal; i.e., that individuals and not just militias, have the right to bear arms.
6. Rich Mason, “Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You” (1999) available online at http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/articles/rkba_important.asp, bold-face emphasis in the original.

First, let me be clear about something, because every time I write about police abusing their authority, it seems the police supporters come crawling out of the woodwork.  In Fresno, as with much of the Central San Joaquin Valley, the police can do no wrong, even when they do.  Having said that, this post is not my own personal pronouncement that the jury screwed up and let a guilty man go free.  I actually don’t know if that’s true. 

I am, however, going to talk about what the newspaper has reported, throw in a few comments from things I’ve heard from attorneys who are more familiar with the facts, and express my opinion.

Well, okay, I’ve already started expressing my opinion: In Fresno, as with much of the Central San Joaquin Valley, the police can do no wrong, even when they do. 

As I said, though, I wasn’t involved with this case.  I didn’t attend the trial.  I only read what was in The Fresno Bee.  And I know full well that The Fresno Bee seldom gets the story right when it comes to our courts.

Yet it is worth noting that the failure of a jury to convict does not an innocent man make.  Juries are not called on to decide innocence: they’re called on to decide guilt.  So when they decide someone is not guilty, they are saying only that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.   They are not saying someone is innocent.  That is not something within their power to do.

As Michael Idiart, a well-respected local criminal defense attorney has noted:

[J]uries read about violent crime in Fresno and are inclined to believe police officers over people portrayed by the defense as gang members.

“A lot of jurors just believe police have a difficult job and criminals have it coming to them.”  (Pablo Lopez, “Jury acquits former Fresno officer” (January 26, 2010) p. A6, col. 4, quoting Michael Idiart.)

Marshall Hodgkins, speaking like the good criminal defense lawyer that he is, felt his client had been vindicated — although, remember, he was only found not guilty — and said that a half-courtroom filled with police officers had no impact on the jury:

This was one of the most analytical juries I have ever seen.  (Jim Guy, Pablo Lopez and George Hostetter, “Police chief orders two reviews” (January 26, 2010) p. A6, col. 2, quoting Marshall Hodgkins.)

In an attempt to thwart the jury’s analytical skills, the judge in the case ordered that the police officers filling the courtroom in support of their accused comrade could not wear uniforms or carry guns, except when testifying.  (The uniforms and guns are necessary when testilying to give the officers’ words extra authority, just in case a Fresno jury was inclined to doubt their veracity.)  The jurors were therefore incapable of linking the large number of broad shoulders, short haircuts, their demeanor and the fact that they sat behind the accused officer to a strong police presence.

The truth is, though, that this episode is not just good news for the modern police man (and woman).  It’s good news for all of us. 

With officers no doubt feeling emboldened by the refusal of Fresno County’s submitizens to ever convict an officer for wrongdoing — this is the second officer acquitted despite fairly strong evidence that something isn’t quite right here — the day may be almost upon us when officers will commit their crimes more openly.

Because what this acquittal convinces me of — whether this officer is factually culpable or not — is that until the abuse reaches “ordinary” submitizens and not just those the police can convincingly argue are ‘gang members,” police misconduct will continue to be a fact of life in Fresno.