Tag Archives: concealed carry

Off Duty Arkansas State Trooper Accosts Man Legally Open Carrying; Has Him Arrested After Complaint is Filed

The following post and accompanying video were shared with the CopBlock Network by Drew Tanner, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page. The video contains lots of commentary, so it’s fairly self-explanatory.

Tanner maintains that he was at a local Walmart in Searcy, Arkansas shopping and minding his own business when he was accosted by a stranger. That stranger was eventually identified as Trooper Kurt Ziegenhorn of the Arkansas State Police, although at the time he was off duty, not in uniform, and had not yet provided a badge or police ID. Ziegenhorn also failed to even verbally identify himself prior to physically confronting Tanner, apparently because he was not aware that it is legal to open carry firearms in Arkansas.

After the initial contact, Tanner called 911 to report the incident as he was being followed around the store by Trooper Ziegenhorn. Shortly after, Walmart management asked them to leave the store. Once outside, they were met by officers from the Searcy Police Department. Those officers subsequently determined that Tanner had not broken any laws and released him.

A few days later, after discussing Walmart’s policy on open carry with corporate headquarters (and being told it was not prohibited on their property), Tanner went back to the same store, this time unarmed, to discuss whether he could carry his weapon within the story with the local manager. Before Tanner was able to talk to the manager, Ziegenhorn, who seemingly was following him, also showed up. Tanner was then illegally detained and searched after being handcuffed and removed from the store. During that illegal search his CHCL, which he had legally attained, was stolen from him by Ziegenhorn. He was, however, then released by Trooper Ziegenhorn without any charges or citations being issued.

Tanner then filed a complaint with the Arkansas State Police against Ziegenhorn. About seven weeks later he was arrested in an act of retaliation on a warrant for “obstructing governmental operations.” The basis given for that charge was that he had not immediately indicated to Trooper Ziegenhorn that he had a concealed carry firearms permit (known as a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Arkansas), even though he was not actually carrying a concealed weapon at the time and Trooper Ziegenhorn had not definitively identified him self as a law enforcement officer at that point.

Although he was initially found guilty on that bogus charge in the local courts, Tanner was later acquitted and completely cleared of any wrongdoing on appeal. In spite of that the Arkansas State Police revoke his CHCL in another act of retaliation. He is currently still trying to regain it, over two years later.

(NOTE: There seems to be a fair amount of confusion among police within Arkansas regarding the legality of openly carrying firearms, as evidenced by this previous series of video posts involving a man who was unlawfully arrested for open carrying in Bald Knob, Arkansas.)

If you have a video, personal story involving police misconduct and/or abuse, or commentary about a law enforcement related news story, we would be happy to have you submit it. You can find some advice on how to get your submission published on the CopBlock Network within this post.

Date(s) of Incident: Nov. 29, 2014; Dec. 04, 2014, Ongoing
Officer Involved: Trooper Kurt Ziegenhorn
Department Involved: Arkansas State Police
Department Facebook Page: Arkansas State Police
Department Twitter Account: @ARStatePolice
Department Email: [email protected]
Department Phone No.: (501) 618-8000
Office of Professional Standards Contact: Lieutenant Paulette Ward
OPS Phone Number: (501) 618-8929
OPS Email Address: [email protected]

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

Click the banner to submit content to CopBlock.org

On Nov 29, 2014, I was shopping in Walmart when Arkansas State Trooper Kurt Ziegenhorn attacked me, while off-duty and out of uniform, because he didn’t know that it was legal in the state to openly carry firearms. I called 911 on him and was eventually asked to leave the store by management, where we were met by two uniformed Searcy Police Department officers outside.

I was never placed in handcuffs in this incident, nor was my weapon taken from me at any time. I was free to go. However, a few days later I went into the store unarmed after I had discussed the store’s gun policy with their corporate office and was assured that I was allowed to carry in the store, and I wanted to clear it up with the manager. The same trooper was there again, and handcuffed me, took me out to his car and confiscated my Concealed Handgun Carry License (even though I was not carrying at the time).

He then let me go. Seven weeks later, police came to my door with an arrest warrant of “obstructing governmental operations” for the first incident. I was eventually found not-guilty in circuit court. However, the state police refused to return my CHCL (which I fought and lost). I filed a FOIA request to get the incident reports from the state police regarding the second incident, but they DENIED the FOIA request.

I can provide additional evidence of false claims by Trooper Kurt Ziegenhorn that the video clearly contradicts. (Saying I reached for my gun, etc, etc.)

– Drew Tanner

Leave a comment

Ninth Circuit Court Rules Concealed Carrying of Firearms Not Protected by Second Amendment

Earlier today, a California appeals court upheld the state’s law that imposes permits and restrictions on the carrying of a concealed weapon in public. The Ninth Circuit Court, located in San Francisco, overruled a previous decision in “Peruta v. County of San Diego” by three members of the court that California’s requirement for citizens to show “good cause” in order to qualify for a concealed-carry permit violates the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Via the New York Times:

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.

The case was brought by gun owners who were denied permits in Yolo and San Diego Counties. The plaintiffs did not immediately say whether they planned to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a huge decision,” said Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. “This is a major victory for gun control advocates. “

Gun control advocates are hailing this as a giant win, while gun rights advocates and strict Constitutionalists are calling it a major infringement on the rights of citizens to defend themselves. In fact, this is even being characterized as one battle in the next war over the potential regulation of gun ownership and use.

Jonathan E. Lowy of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “Probably the most important battleground of the Second Amendment has been whether there is a right to carry guns outside the home, and if there is, to what extent can states and localities regulate that right.”

Leave a comment

New Ohio Bill Eases Some Restrictions on Concealed Carry Permit Holders

Last week, the Ohio State House of Representatives passed a bill that eliminates many of the restrictions on where concealed carry permit holders can bring handguns. Those locations include day cares, public areas within airport terminals and police stations, certain government facilities and college campuses. Private colleges would have the option of allowing or banning guns on campus.

People would also be able to store guns at public schools locked within their vehicles in the parking lot. The stated intention for that would be to allow visitors to school to have their handguns before and after that visit without fear of facing charges for having those firearms in a “school safety zone.”

“This bill would allow parents, or other individuals who have legitimate business at schools, to secure their firearm and their vehicle, and perhaps drop off lunch or medication to their child,” (Buckeye Firearm Association’s Ronald) Lemieux explained.

Of course, not everyone is pleased with this development. Some people believe that as long as the only “Good Guys” that are armed also have magical badges children have nothing to worry about while at school.

Democratic State Rep Greta Johnson voted against the bill.

“There was no debate allowed on the House floor Tuesday on this particular bill. That’s very troubling to me. That allows for the constituents I serve not to be served in that manner,” Johnson said.

Public and private colleges and universities would get to decide whether or not to allow concealed handguns on campus. Johnson says they would not be held liable if something goes wrong. She says places, like colleges and day cares, are too vulnerable to allow concealed carry handguns.

“I understand when people say the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That’s why we have such good police officers, such incredible first responders,” she said.

Because police have never been known to act violently or to hurt and even murder children (said nobody ever). The bill still needs to pass the Ohio State Senate.

Cleveland 19 News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports

You can always trust cops to be responsible and exercise good judgement with guns around children.

Leave a comment

Bill Scott, Father of Erik Who Was Killed by LVMPD Employees, Interviewed by Bill Buppert of ZeroGov.com

 

Erik Scott

The text below was posted to ZeroGov.com on August 04 by Bill Buppert. It is cross-posted here (by way of CopBlock.org) per the obvious relevance of the matters it addresses, including the fact that the shooting of Erik Scott took place in Las Vegas four years and one month ago, on July 10, 2010.

Related:

________________________

Ten Questions for Bill Scott, Author of The Permit
by Bill Buppert

I read Bill’s book, The Permit, and was aghast at the more intimate and grim details on his son’s murder by cops in Las Vegas in 2010 depicted in the novel. This site is no stranger to reports of predation and rampant misbehavior and mayhem wrought by American police today. My twitter posts three-five new incidents of cop brutality daily. The police state in the US may be the most far-reaching residual of the American War on Terror which has become a self-fulfilling Orwellian prophecy with the use of the campaign as a means to institutionalize maximum government to keep the tax cattle safe no matter the expense in liberty and freedom.

Bill has been kind enough to grant this interview with me.

Bill Scott is now a full-time author, writing techno-thriller novels. The latest is “The Permit,” which is based on the murder of his eldest son, Erik. He co-authored two other novels, “Space Wars: The First Six Hours of World War III,” and a sequel, “Counterspace: The Next Hours of World War III,” plus one nonfiction book, “Inside the Stealth Bomber: The B-2 Story.”

Bill can be reached via the Contact section of my website, http://williambscott.com, or e-mail at: [email protected].

While Bill and I may not agree on everything, we do agree that the US police state is a clear and present danger to any human being living within the borders of the US. -BB

Bill Buppert: Tell the readers some of your background.

Bill Scott: My wife and I have been married 44 years, and we were blessed with two incredible sons, Erik and Kevin.

In 2007, I retired as the Rocky Mountain Bureau Chief, concluding a 22-year career as a writer/reporter for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine. I’m a Flight Test Engineer graduate of the US Air Force Test Pilot School (TPS), and flight-tested aircraft for 12 years, both as an Air Force officer and civilian FTE. My undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering. While on USAF active duty, I flew classified nuclear debris-sampling/collection missions, served as an R&D engineer with the National Security Agency, and was a flight test instrumentation engineer, prior to being selected for USAF TPS. As a civil pilot with a commercial certificate and instrument and multi-engine ratings, flight test engineer, AvWeek reporter, and USAF aircrew member, I logged about 2,000 hours of flight time in 80 different types of aircraft.

Bill Buppert: Many condolences on the loss of your son; I read Erik’s story when it first happened in 2010 and then read your cathartic novel, The Permit, which fleshed out more details in a fictional narrative of the murder of your son by Las Vegas Metro cops and the subsequent cover-up. Were you surprised at the cover-up, stonewalling and general nastiness of the police after they murdered your son?

Bill Scott: Yes, very surprised. Before Erik was shot to death, I was one of those naïve American military veterans, who thought all but a few rogue police officers also were honest public servants dedicated to protecting and serving. I quickly learned that cowardice, corruption and cover-up were the standard for about a third of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department—including the sheriff, Doug Gillespie, and his chief cover-up “spook,” Captain Patrick Neville. I arrived in Vegas two days after Erik was murdered, convinced that a sloppy, transparent cover-up was well underway. When I asked, “Why would they cover up an officer-involved shooting, which appears to be a massive screw-up, not an intentional murder?” my lawyer, several of Erik’s friends, and long-time Vegas residents looked at me as if I’d parachuted in from Mars. They unanimously replied, “Because they always cover up their murders! There’s nothing special about Erik!”

Bill Buppert: Most Americans are living in what I consider an illusion in thinking the police protect and serve anyone but the rulers and bureaucracy of the various levels of government. This especially appears to be the case with the consistently egregious behavior of the LVM. Do you consider the LVM to be a viciously compromised and self-serving entity?

Bill Scott: Most definitely. Las Vegas Metro PD is an integral arm of the Clark County/Las Vegas Cartel of Corruption, which comprises billionaires, powerful politicians, immoral, appalling cops, a complicit district attorney’s office, compromised judges, the coroner’s office (which now encompasses Public Administrator functions), and an absolutely venal, obstructionist police union. This cartel is controlled by a Cleveland branch of the Mafia or Mob, which has its dirty paws in several of the big resort-hotels and casinos.

In short, this Cartel uses LVMPD cops as its enforcers of evil, ranging from stealing the wealth of elderly citizens to beating and executing those who can’t pay gambling debts, and forcing runaway kids into child sex rings. Paying off low-IQ cops is more sophisticated than hiring a bunch of knee-breaking “Guidos,” as the Mob does back East. Instead, the Las Vegas Cartel developed a quasi-legal “coroner inquest” system that guaranteed any murder committed by a police officer was found “Justified.” Since the late 1970s, about 200 coroner inquest hearings were held in Clark County, NV, billed as a quasi-judicial “fact-finding” exercise. Of course, not a single cop was ever found at fault. Every killing by a LV Metro cop was ruled “Justified.” Incredible.

Bill Buppert: Were you surprised at the cruel and nasty attitude and behavior of the LVM when you were attempting to get justice for Erik in the legal system?

Bill Scott: By the time we filed our lawsuits, I knew LVMPD would stop at nothing to protect their killer-cops and Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s reelection campaign. Good, honest cops said that my phones and e-mails were being monitored, thanks to the Vegas federal-state-local “Joint Fusion Center,” which routinely uses high-tech snooping technology, under the guise of counterterrorism. Metro detectives illegally broke into, and stole several guns from, Erik’s condo, twisted the facts of his medical records (Erik had 40% of his L5 vertebra broken off, a casualty of Army airborne training. He suffered severe back pain, after a fender-bender car accident that realigned his spine in late 2009.), tried to intimidate Erik’s ex-wife, harassed Erik’s then-girlfriend (three traffic tickets within three weeks of Erik’s murder), and cherry-picked witnesses for the coroner’s inquest hearing. Further, LVM cops illegally acquired court-sealed records from another state, which were clearly stamped by a judge, stating that the claims in a detective’s report “did not occur.”

Metro detectives even pursued laughable measures to gin up a patently false narrative about Erik carrying a “second gun,” when, in fact, he only had a single pistol on his person (a legal, concealed-carry weapon), when he was shot to death. His .45-caliber Kimber Ultra Carry semiautomatic was removed from the body, after Erik’s corpse had been loaded into an AMR ambulance. That firearm was then placed on the concrete, near the entrance-exit of Costco-Summerlin in Las Vegas, supposedly as “proof” that Erik had pulled it, still in its holster.

Ooops! The ambulance EMTs’ report documented a firearm and extra magazine found on Erik’s body. That little hiccup prompted a panicked effort to break into Erik’s condo and steal a “second gun” to comport with 1) a gun found on Erik’s body, and 2) a pistol, in its holster, being on the ground, after the shooting. In fact, the only item on the ground, after Erik was shot seven times, was his BlackBerry, which he had in his right hand. At least two of Erik’s pistols, and, possibly, two rifles were stolen from the condo. Then, brilliant Metro detectives fired a hole in the handle of a small (stolen) Ruger LCP, trying to imply the small gun was in my son’s jeans front pocket, which contained Erik’s 1.75-inches-thick wallet!

A detailed analysis conducted by Mike McDaniel, a former professional police and ex-SWAT officer, trainer and crime scene investigator, completely destroys Metro’s ludicrous “two-gun” narrative. That superb analysis is available (with photos of Erik’s firearms) on Mike’s blog: The Erik Scott Case: Update 19

Bill Buppert: Is a Coroner’s Inquest designed to protect the misbehavior and brutality of the police and its allies?

Bill Scott: In Las Vegas, NV, that’s absolutely true. The old Vegas inquest was a one-sided, bizarre perversion of due process, which made a mockery of American jurisprudence. We allowed Erik’s September 2010 inquest hearing to be televised and streamed over the Internet. Once Las Vegas citizens and thousands throughout America and many foreign countries witnessed, first-hand, this moronic kangaroo court in action, the outrage and blow-back that erupted forced a radical revision of the Clark County coroner’s inquest process. However, the Cartel of Corruption, through its proxy, an uber-arrogant Las Vegas Police Protective Association (police union), managed to put the new, revised inquest system on indefinite hold. Now, a corrupt district attorney, Steve Wolfson, reviews all officer-involved shootings and single-handedly rules whether they were justified or criminal. Over the past three years, Wolfson has found every single shooting “Justified.” Surprise! New system, same outcomes. The Cartel maintains iron-fisted control of the Southern Nevada “justice” system, ensuring Metro’s killer-cops always go free and never are held accountable for crimes that would imprison a “civilian” for life.

Bill Buppert: There are an estimated 19,000 law enforcement agencies in the USA; do you suspect the behavior and actions of the LVM are a microcosm of modern American policing?

Bill Scott: I do, given that cops across the nation routinely commit and get away with egregious murders and acts of raw brutality. The federal Patriot Act literally gave cops a license to kill, and many don’t hesitate to shoot. As a result, law enforcement now attracts an extraordinary number of bullies and brain-damaged, angry men and women. Many of these are totally devoid of courage and conscience, and are convinced they truly are above the law. They feel they can do anything they please, and can get away with it. Backed by obscene unions, today’s cops take great umbrage with anybody daring to question their judgment, tactics, use of force, and absurd accounts of an incident.

Bill Buppert: I suggest an evil trifecta of police misbehavior in police unions, officer safety mandates and qualified immunity to be core causes of the tragedy that is the US police state today bolstered by creeping militarization and Federalization. What do you think?

Bill Scott: I agree. As described in Chapter Ten of The Permit, law enforcement officers and agents of all stripes constitute the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat facing Americans today. Over the last few decades, cops and federal agents have killed more citizens than our nation lost at Pearl Harbor, on D-Day 1944, and on 9/11/2001…combined. An American citizen is now eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist. And a police officer is 130 times more likely to be involved in an act of misconduct than to be killed in the line of duty.

Police unions leverage the power of money to elect, then control, politicians. With polished, proven rhetoric, unions have tricked well-meaning, yet hopelessly naïve, politicos into passing “Qualified Immunity” laws that virtually guarantee a killer-cop will never be held accountable for murdering an innocent “civilian”—as cops now refer to lowly taxpaying citizens. Juries rarely find a cop guilty of murder or wrongdoing, because the average jurist still believes the falsehood that cops are honest and would never lie. As any experienced courtroom lawyer will confirm, though, cops do lie, even under oath.

Add to that the totally unjustified, runaway militarization of local and state police departments—aided and abetted by federal dollars and military equipment—and we now have precisely what the nation’s founders tried to prevent: A standing domestic army that exists for the sole purpose of controlling the very people who pay the jackbooted thugs’ salaries. In the 21st Century, America truly has become a police state.

Bill Buppert: Absent a police power, how would a state deny individual freedom and liberty?

Bill Scott: By gutting the Second Amendment and disarming American citizens, removing the only sure, last-ditch means to resist a tyrannical government. Disarmament, in itself, would inspire a power-hungry tyrant to create his own police force. No politician would allow unarmed, vulnerable masses to live as they pleased.

erik-b-scott-slain-by-lvmpd-employees-zerogov-copblockBill Buppert: Any updates in the case with Erik?

Bill Scott: I’m still pursuing legal measures, and continuing to wage asymmetric war against the Cartel of Corruption that controls Las Vegas. I don’t talk about strategies, operations and tactics, but several battles have been relatively successful. I’m aided by a small number of motivated, well-connected allies, who are quietly working behind the scenes. I’m not privy to their campaign strategies, but am assured that the Vegas Cartel and its killer-cop drones are literally living on borrowed days. I couldn’t halt these warriors’ strikes-for-justice, if I wanted to.

Bill Buppert: I hope The Permit has been well received. I would urge my readers to buy the book and, if possible, review it on Amazon. Has it caused the reaction you expected? Do you still receive threats from the LVM?

Bill Scott: Many thanks for the endorsement, Bill. National sales of the novel continue to build steadily, thanks to overwhelmingly positive reviews, particularly on Amazon. In Las Vegas, reactions from Cartel entities are basically what we expected: Ignore the book and pretend it doesn’t exist, or, when pressed, demean and dismiss it as irrelevant. Fortunately, criticism and patronizing dismissal by the police union director, Chris Collins, and his team of online intimidator trolls backfired and has significantly increased sales of “The Permit.” Anything union cops hate and trash-talk, smart people embrace.

Metro’s threats aren’t as overt and transparent as they were a few years ago. However, the Las Vegas Joint Fusion Center’s geek-goons still may be monitoring my phone calls and e-mail messages, according to inside sources.

Before Erik was murdered, LV Metro had two public affairs officers; it now employs nine, supposedly because the “Scott Family” caused the department so much grief. The Permit also has contributed significantly to Metro’s miserable, tanking public image. I’m assured that, as a result of Erik’s senseless murder and courageous activism by “Erik’s Warriors,” LV Metro has quietly changed its policies, procedures and training dramatically. Of course, Sheriff Gillespie and his scared-stiff “Tower” staff also were motivated by the threat of a Department of Justice consent decree being imposed on the department.

I’ve been accused of being anti-cop and hating police officers. Absolutely not true. I’m deeply indebted to many good-hearted, professional police officers, who helped me expose the sordid inner workings of Las Vegas Metro, in particular, and Sin City, in general. Law enforcement professionals across the nation have patiently explained how a good police force operates. They invariably express stunned disbelief, outrage and embarrassment, when they hear how LV Metro’s badged thugs executed my son, then covered up the killers’ crimes.

These pros (and I) are quite distressed by the militarization of U.S. cops, and a few have helped me develop a presentation I call “Restore Honor.” I firmly believe that, unless good cops stand up and collectively demand that their own departments return to a “protect-and-serve” mentality and culture, our nation will explode in rebellion. As The Permit warns, armed, infuriated citizens will literally hunt down any cop sporting a badge. The level of simmering, subsurface fury I sense throughout the country, primarily directed at arrogant, above-the-law cops, is unprecedented…and scary.

I adamantly emphasize that I do not advocate violence against police officers. But “good” cops have been too silent, too willing to look the other way, for too long. I predict that, in the name of self-protection, honorable, professional cops will soon launch an aggressive crusade to Rid the Ranks of Rogues—eliminating corrupt outlaws from their own departments. Such a campaign might take the form of destroying a corrupt officer’s credit rating; pressuring a bank to foreclose on a killer-cop’s home; filing criminal charges for malfeasance, or taking more-direct action. The operation will spread rapidly, and it won’t be pretty. But, when Neanderthal killer-cops are systematically expunged from local, state and federal law enforcement, citizens will be quick to rally behind those high-integrity officers, who Restore Honor to what once was an honorable profession.

Godspeed to them.

45 Comments

No Longer Counting Coup

No Longer Counting Coup

This post was shared with the CopBlock Network by Darryl E Berry Jr, aka Cezyl, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

Counting coup is a term referring to winning prestige in battle, coined by the Indians of North America. Considered acts of bravery included touching an enemy warrior, or stealing their horse or weapons from their camp, and escaping unharmed. There had to be a legitimate risk of injury or death as a prerequisite. To escape unharmed would seal the requirements of counting coup.(1)

I think the practice of purposely going through roadblocks or initiating interactions with the police for the purpose of exciting them, or recording them for recording’s sake, is a part of this idea; though I am not talking about recording for your own safety or someone else’s safety if it happens that a police encounter occurs. I think we should all be ready to protect and defend ourselves from law enforcement. But we don’t need to fight against them, or be the aggressor against them; all we have to do is simply leave them behind. I will explain; let me lay the foundation first. I’m open to your feedback or clarification on the matter, as well as hearing your perceptions.

For instance, people walking around aimlessly with rifles, knowing they will get calls on them made to the police, knowing they will be sequestered, and questioned, all the while recording it; or people purposely going through roadblocks to record “standing up for their rights.” I don’t feel enthusiastic about these ideas. In fact, I think they may be more detrimental to our freedom and liberty than beneficial. You could just carry concealed for self-defense, or carry your rifle as you go to the shooting range. Videos I see of people walking aimlessly with a rifle just to be doing so seems pointless to me. Being a nuisance just gets people in an uproar, and cultivates the unjustified and government-manufactured fear that causes them to call the police upon you for doing what they see police do all the time. I have seen video where police get called on people who just had a handgun open-carry on their hip.

The person walking around aimlessly with two rifles cultivates the fear that has people call the police on a person walking around with a handgun open carrying on their hip, just as the police walk open carrying with a handgun on their hip. But I have seen a video where a man, who was apparently concealed carrying, stopped a lady from getting robbed. The person walking around concealed carrying that helps a person in need, in my opinion, helps 1,000 times more than the person aimlessly walking around being a nuisance. Now I have seen a video where someone was walking purposefully, perhaps from the shooting range or from hunting, with a rifle, and people in the neighborhood called the police on him. If I remember right, he happened to be recording video with his son, and had his son record the interaction. The point could be made that the person aimlessly walking around open carrying with a rifle can help bring exposure and normalcy to the activity, and thus help people like him who are walking purposively to not have the police called on them. Of the concealed carrier who helps, the perception I have is: “Respect, respect.” Of the aimless nuisance, the perception I have is: “Why, Why?”

I believe that trying to reform the “government,” the “police,” the system in any way, shape, or form, is a lost cause. People think that the police work for us but I do not think that is true – the evidence shows that is not true. I think ideally they would work for us, and it seems that they are supposed to work for us, but the fact is if they are pulling you over unjustly, illegally, unconstitutionally, they are clearly NOT working for you. If they are examining your vehicle trying to find something wrong to charge you with or arrest you for, or they pull you over and cite you to extort money from you when you’re driving safely and not hurting anyone, but over the arbitrary number officials have pasted up on a sign, they are NOT working for you. If they can do anything to you or anyone else that you “cannot” do to them under the same circumstances, they do NOT work for you.

What if we set up a roadblock to see if policemen are doing something illegal? I do not see that going well. We would be charged with all kinds of crimes, I’m sure: holding up or interfering with traffic, assault, resisting arrest, and anything else they could think of, I’m sure. I actually saw a video as a matter of fact where people went up to a police car and were asking them all the interrogation questions they ask us: “Have you been drinking? What are you doing here? I smell alcohol on your breath, etc.” The cop boisterously got out of the car and everyone backed up, and the cop was talking of arresting them.(2) They continued talking from afar and the cops left – and I suppose that would count as counting coup. If we were to literally police the policemen and other people in government, and forcibly enforce that policing, they would all have to shut down as so many of them would be in jail – not only those who commit crimes, but also all the others who watch or do nothing to prevent or intervene or capture those that do. All are equally breaking their oath. It seems fitting that they should have one charge for each crime, and another for breaking their oath.

It could be just fear on my part, but even so, I don’t see that more good, or enough good, might come over potential bad from counting coup with the police, or the government, or any perceived authority. The key is to recognize that they are not really authority. These people have over us only the power that we defer to them. At least now, it’s often quite practical to defer to them, when for instance you’re outnumbered by seven armed thugs who are violating your rights. But ultimately it is not about immediate safety – the endeavor of counting coup against them itself says they have the power. Counting coup would not be valid against an impotent or invalid opponent. Psychologically we still believe that these people truly have power over us, that we have some moral obligation to follow them and submit ourselves to them, even though we know they lie, and cheat, and steal, and connive, and are corrupt. Of course not ALL of them, but most of them are implementing and enforcing the corruption, whether actively involved or passively watching or simply not looking, and extremely few of them are countering or impeding unjust enforcement. I only know of three instances where law enforcement enforced the law against other law enforcement officers. All of them experienced deleterious effects to their lives and livelihood at the hands of other officers.

There is the state cop who arrested a local cop for doing 120 mph down the interstate, heading to his off-duty job; he was weaving between cars, speeding down a busy interstate,  endangering his own life as well as the lives of everyone nearby him. Even with her chasing with police lights blaring, it took seven minutes for him to stop. In response, she received mass harassment from police officers, including random telephone calls of Frank’s and threats, pizza orders, unfamiliar with the locals and police cars sitting idling in her cul-de-sac. She found that eighty-eight law enforcement officers from twenty-five different agencies used their systems to access her information, utilizing the systems they are supposed to use in their duties, to track her down, harass her, and vandalize her property, to the point that she filed a lawsuit.(3)

There is a border patrol officer who spoke up about the unconstitutional treatment citizens were receiving at the hands of his fellow officers. He was demoted, his locker at work was broken into, and he is now banned from doing border patrol while the officers who were breaking the law and infringing upon rights in doing so remain there and continue to do so.(4)

And more recently in the news, there is an interim police chief who, before he was promoted, was relatively engaging in an inappropriate sexual behavior, including searching through the cell phones of under age sexual abuse victims for sexual photos with no warrant or legal reason to do so. He would also make sexual comments to females he would come across while on the job. When a detective could get no recourse to his actions within this department, he brought it up to the mayor in a department review. Rather than addressing the issue, the officer was promoted to police chief and the detective was accused of stealing and put on leave. Now the officer is bringing a case against the interim police chief and the mayor. 10)

I know in my heart that roadblocks are not right; a similar sentiment shared by a woman who experienced officers trying to coerce her to give samples of her DNA.(11) I remember how it felt when I experienced my first roadblock back in New Orleans, Louisiana, over 10 years ago. It is clear to me that they are unconstitutional – and whatever legal jargon and justifications and rationalizations they use, stopping and questioning everyone going down the road for whatever reason is not reasonable. These are the same people that thought it reasonable to force people out of their homes at gunpoint in a search for one person.(5) If the people officially in authority truly believed in liberty, they would be encouraging EVERYONE to be armed, and to practice and train at shooting, and then if ever a lone or duo crazed lunatic is running free or trying to shoot up a school or theater, they would have no chance. Those officially in authority could simply alert us to be aware of the maniac on the loose, and everyone could be locked, loaded, and ready. Or if someone just started randomly shooting, they could have 30 bullets in them by the time they shot the second person. I’m sure this would greatly discourage mass shootings.

With all they did to infringe upon the rights of all those people when they were searching for that suspect, the authorities did not find the guy anyway. If I remember right, a person found him in his backyard, hiding in a boat. These are the same people who erroneously believe that forcibly confiscating weapons from people who are in a state of emergency is a reasonable thing to do, while during that time other policeman are raping and looting people.(6) Not only is disarming people clearly unconstitutional, and plainly the wrong, and a bad idea at ANY time, but doing so is doubly destructive when people are most in need of their weapons; when others including policemen are running around looting and raping and killing (and again, military and police were disarming people, and policemen were among the looters and those raping people). Perhaps it was a dry run to see if their training at disarming people was sufficient; perhaps it was on-the-job training in preparation for a larger scale confiscation.

I have talked to a lawyer about “roadblocks.” The courts say they are legal for the police to do – as long as they uphold various criteria, like signs and lights at this or that distance away, a specific purpose and parameter for the stop and check, etc; and sometimes they don’t even hold to that. We may know that roadblocks are unconstitutional, but apparently the people who the Constitution was meant to limit have themselves decided that they will interpret their own limits, which of course circumvents the purpose of the Constitution and the limits entirely! I don’t believe these people care about the law and the Constitution; except insofar as they can use them to tyrannize us with. I believe that being out there counting coup against them does draw attention to the issues of unconstitutionality and tyranny. But we can bring attention to the issue simply by going directly to the people and educating everyone, and being ready to record the many and escalating infractions occurring in our normal comings and goings. The colonists would never have let it get THIS far.

A court case has just gone through establishing that it is legal to film the cops doing their duties.(7a) And I agree it is important to do so, as recordings of police have been the only thing to stop some people from getting charged with assault when the police assaulted them.(7b) And even with situations like this going on, some officers are wanting us to not be able to record them! But I wonder if the time counting coup in whatever way might be better spent going on a flyer hand out, away from the DUI stops, and other areas where we know we would get harassed by the police though we are not harming anyone, and instead spend that time educating people of their rights – and not “constitutional” rights, but our natural and inalienable sovereign rights, as living sentient beings. The Constitution does not give us rights; it is supposed to remind us of and remind the officials of the rights we inherently have. If you read the second amendment, as the lawyer explained to me, rather than “giving” the right to bear arms it actually tells “government” that it will not infringe upon that pre-existing inherent right.

We don’t need permission to be free from any governmental authority, who anyway are a group of liars, murderers, extortionists, and thieves – who themselves, on up to presidents and prime ministers, are simply pawns under the puppet strings of liars, murderers, extortionists, and thieves. We don’t need scribbles on a piece of paper to have the right to defend ourselves, or to freely travel unmolested, or to keep the fruits of our labor. What is happening now is that we are divided, so though as a whole we outnumber the tyrants and their enforcers thousands and thousands to one, the few of them gang up on a handful of us, and they are piecemeal using force to subjugate the many. If enough people become aware, we could simply walk away from this oppressive system and let it die. I don’t think it does anyone any good for anyone who is courageous enough and aware of enough to be working for the cause of freedom to be locked up or killed, especially for going out of their way just to get video of something we get enough video of just by having a camera on the ready in the normal course of our and our neighbors’ living. A case of course can be made for having people on standby to record roadblocks for instance, for the safety of the people going through those roadblocks. But I think the attitude, the drive, in such an endeavor is different from counting coup, from seeking to the point of facilitating something controversy worthy to record.

Basically I have given up all respect for government and police and any authority system. As far as I’m concerned, given for instance that they don’t even follow the very laws they pass and take oaths to protect, they are not government officials nor police officers – if they ever were. And the term “peace officer” is laughable today. They are taking advantage of people’s lingering belief in a way of life that has already died. Truly I think it’s damaging to us at this point to continue to speak of constitutional rights when it is clear that those in official power and in official authority are violating and seeking further violation of those constitutional rights every day. Those in official power and authority in this country do not care about our rights.

What could be more precise for some is that they care more about following the commands of their masters (their bosses, or sources of funding), who ultimately though a highly compartmentalized chain of command all take orders from a tiny group of the world’s wealthiest people who are in fact seeking world domination and are manipulating the world in that direction. These people in ultimate control within this system manipulate wars with false flag operations, killing thousands of people just during the false flag, and then tens of thousands more in falsely “justified” war, just to consolidate more power or implement more draconian laws like the PATRIOT Act or the NDAA. What more proof do we need that these people don’t care about us, or laws, our rights, our safety, or anything but their own power and control?

I think it’s more practical for us to get into a pre-constitutional state of mind, where we recognize our natural right to be free and sovereign, and our natural right to protect and defend ourselves and others from whatever aggressor is attacking us. If we did this in unison it will not matter what document was there or not. We could simply live our lives freely as we please; no money, no laws, no rules, except to not enact aggression on anyone and to help anyone who is being assaulted, which is simply the law already written upon everyone’s hearts. And if remnants of the old way come to harass us, to again try to force their way of doing things upon, or to again try to rob us of the fruits of our labor, to again try to destroy and subjugate our sovereign way of life because it does not feed their tyrannous machine, we can have the numbers and the force to stop them or kill them. And then the old way simply falls away.

People speak of the ability to maintain ourselves without some kind of governmental system, but in fact this governmental system is holding back the flourishing of humanity and the planet as a whole. Since the last 50 to 100 years we could have free energy devices – pollution free sources of unlimited energy, but the tyrannical machine requires limited and controllable energy supplies in order to maintain control over us and has aggressively subverted these technologies; even though our current system is destroying the planet that they themselves live on as well!(12) These people are insane. The belief in government and authority is the belief that we need to subject ourselves to the whims of insane, deceitful, destructive, megalomaniacal, murderous people in order to be safe. We believe we need some governmental authority to protect us from the bad people in the world who would harm us, so then we take a few of these bad people who would harm us and give them the power to harm everyone with impunity. And they do so. This is insane on our part.(13)

Pieces of paper however noble the ideas inscribed upon them can be ignored, or other “laws” and “acts” can be written over them – whether it is legal or not to do so this has happened, and is happening, right now. But as Larken Rose points out the US Constitution really failed from the start because it seemingly gave certain people the power and authority to do things that others could not. And here we are again with a Constitution wrought from one break from tyranny, and yet we’re in another tyrannous situation even worse than the colonists were centuries ago. Until we simply accept and acknowledge our natural right to be free, irrespective and beyond ANY worldly authority’s ability to grant or rescind, until we cease believing that ANY form of government can provide us safety, we will end up in the same scenario again and again.(8)

Really it’s not up to “them” whether we are free or not; it is up to us whether we are free or not; so I see no need to make it seem like it is productive spending time competing against those in official authority, going out of our way to give them attention, to purposely go through their unconstitutional roadblocks to record them, etc, counting coup against them. To me that says: “You have the power, and we’re showing you that we disagree with what you are doing. Please stop.” If they cared they would not be overstepping constitutional rights in the first place. And in the end and we’re not willing to stop them they would simply do whatever they want to do regardless of what laws are there are not. Check out Larken Rose’s experiences when he found out in their own tax code that the US federal income tax does not refer to any of our income, and they simply ignored their own rules and jailed him for a year.(14) So I think it is time enough to discontinue speaking of “constitutional rights,” and to get back to the natural, inherent rights that the US Constitution was meant to refer to and symbolize. Let us simply unite and stand together and be free, and resist, even with lethal force, anyone who would infringe upon our freedom. We don’t need a document. We don’t need a vote. We don’t need a petition. All we need is to unite and stand up for ourselves. And we do as a whole need to unite, because relatively small groups who express their freedom are overrun – don’t heed still lies they told us about the situations.(15)

I feel that if enough people are educated and learned, rather than a few of us taking pictures and speaking of “constitutional rights” at unconstitutional roadblocks, and getting arrested or beaten in the process, the entire street of cars of people could simply not cooperate at all; and the first person any “officials” attempt to forcibly dominate would spark an army of us streaming from our cars to subdue the aggressors in gang uniforms; with thousands more, millions more, waiting and watching and at the ready in case we need backup.

The problem is our thinking. We would have no problem defending ourselves against “official” aggressors if we recognized we own ourselves. The state does not own us. Those manipulative, conniving people who made up a fictitious thing called “money” and then manipulated themselves to have a lot of it in order to control the rest of the population do not own us. We can simply walk away from these worthless things, limiting ways of thinking, and destructive systems. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying something like: “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” I suggest you read The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, to help develop a different way of thinking about these issues.(9)

References:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_coup
  2. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/talk-cops-talk/
  3. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fla-trooper-stopped-sues-harassment-article-1.1609641
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJ0sQushts
  5. http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/
  6. http://youtu.be/FyfkQkchlu4
  7. a- http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-amendment-film-police-appeals-court-rules/ ; b- Basically what happened is a female relative living with this guy, she asked for a police escort as she moved her things to a different location. When the man came back to his home the policeman started to harass, question him as he entered his own home, while the police would not tell him why they were there. He was assaulted and then was charged with assault – I’m sure resisting arrest was thrown in there. But again the video vindicated him, and the policeman was charged with assault. If you have a link to an article of this incident please refer to me.
  8. “It Can’t Happen Here!” by Larken Rose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4
  9. www.LarkenRose.com
  10. http://koin.com/2014/06/05/det-blows-whistle-on-corrupt-woodland-police-dept/
  11. http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/federal-contractors-nhtsa-dna-roadblocks/
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VeY5YQUmoQ
  13. https://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos
  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8suBaugqXp4
  15. Waco: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQjlpK9OzNM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9pQ1pIbiU; a small religious community: http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/flds-raid/ and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/03/usa.religion;

21 Comments

Erik Scott’s Murder: What Happens in the LVMPD, Stays in the LVMPD

erik-b-scott-slain-by-lvmpd-employees-zerogov-copblock

On July 10, Erik Scott, a West Point and Duke graduate, went shopping at Costco in Summerlin, Nevada. He was carrying a concealed firearm, as permitted by Nevada state law. Witness and officer reports differ on what happened next. Allegedly, Scott began acting bizarrely, and would not leave the store. Some accounts indicate Xanax and pain killers were in his system after subsequent testing.

It is not disputed that police were called to Costco, and upon seeing Scott, demanded that he drop his weapon (this was recorded on the 911 call, as well as confirmed by a witness). As Mr. Scott reached for his holstered gun (which never left the holster) to drop his weapon, police shot him 2 times in the chest, 5 times in the back, killing him (more here).

The officers involved in the shooting were subsequently found to be “justified,” and of course were not charged with anything. No doubt this case raises many issues; the first one is that of the right to concealed carry. If you can be shot for “acting bizarrely” while posing no threat to anyone, then effectively, there really is no right to concealed carry. The right does not in fact exist if you have the “right to carry” but can be shot arbitrarily.

Of course, there are always the typical apologists who justify police violence with the fact that the victim was non-compliant and thus deserved to be forced into submission. One would think these apologists have nothing to say here; Mr. Scott was shot precisely because he was obeying commands to “drop the firearm.” How can one drop a firearm without touching it? A lot of police justifications center around the fact that several witnesses saw Mr. Scott reaching for a weapon. There is no doubt the 911 recording reflects officer commands for Scott to drop the weapon; in essence, he was shot precisely for obeying police commands. But what are facts to zombie-like police apologists, rushing rabidly to defend tyrants? Lynn S (who is either totally uninformed or an idiot) had this to say in response to a news article on the matter:

If only Mr. Scott would of obeyed the policemans commands this would not be a issue. I hold a ccw card and that is the 1st thing they teach you OBEY a cop if confronted.Maybe a few too many pain pills ??? Sorry to the family , but quit trying to place the blame on the police and take a good look at your son. –Lynn S

Victim-blaming. Tell the dead guy with 7 bulletholes and a heartbroken family and fiancee that it’s their fault. Classic. And classy, I might add (sarcasm). I used to think people were nuts for demanding blind obedience to cops. Now I see it’s not just blind obedience to cops; it’s just a very general, obsequious love -fest for cops. This unfounded deference borders on the obscene; even when you do obey them, when they shoot you it’s still your fault, not theirs.

The story continues to get sketchier from there. Costco, a major wholesaler operating on the international scale, claims its surveillance camera was broken for days leading up to this incident. As such, no footage was available.

Shai Lierley, a Costco security guard now alleges he knew at the time the video was not working, and had arranged for repairs. Yet, initial news articles did not mention any alleged malfunction. It seems strange for Costco to turn (blank) security tapes over to police without mentioning any malfunction if they knew the camera was broken. This article indicates Costco and police refused to comment on the video initially. It is again odd Costco wouldn’t just say such footage didn’t exist if they were aware the surveillance system was broken.

Further, it appears police sent the hard drive to a forensic analyst, allegedly to recover footage. Since when can you recover footage that doesn’t exist? If you knew your camera was broken and failed to record something, it doesn’t make sense to send it to a forensic analyst for retrieval. You can’t retrieve something that never existed in the first place.

Admittedly, this is all speculative. However, even assuming there was no foul play with the convenient lack of surveillance, it is unquestionably ridiculous that a man can be shot for reaching for his gun when armed officers specifically commanded him to drop his gun.

When the story first broke in July, witness accounts differed from the police accounts. With a few minor discrepancies, 4 witnesses interviewed immediately afterward did not know why Scott was shot. None of them saw Scott brandish a weapon. One witness said, “There wasn’t even time for someone to react…The guy didn’t pull a gun. There was no gun in his hand, there was no gun on the ground.” Another witness similarly did not see Mr. Scott threaten anyone. A July 28 update indicated there were floods of witnesses calling the station offering to give accounts.

Another eyewitness referenced in this article who was right next to Scott claims he didn’t have a gun in his hand or appear to be hostile in any way. The witness further said that once Scott was down and clearly not a threat, police treated his lifeless body “like a sack of potatoes.”

Metro Police Officer William Mosher testifying at the coroner’s inquest

More recently, witnesses at the coroner’s inquest have largely backed police accounts of Scott brandishing a weapon, holding a gun, reaching for a gun, or something to that effect. In the eyes of the jury involved in the coroner’s inquest, this appears to have justified the murder. It is unclear why this is the case. Even assuming the witnesses claiming Scott made no threatening move were all lying, witnesses supporting the police’s account of events actually make this murder even more ridiculous. If Scott was reaching for a weapon, he was doing so under police orders.

The level of incompetence required for a team of allegedly trained police to scream for a suspect to drop his weapon, but then to shoot him when he attempts to do so is almost incomprehensible.

Well, police have succeeded at their job. No one was made safer. A man is dead because of their incompetence and shameless use of violence, but their approval ratings are doing just fine.

his was originally posted at CopBlock.org

3 Comments