Occupy Phoenix Asks, "When Should You Shoot A Cop????


The Blaze reports on the discovery of a flyer at the “Occupy Phoenix” camp which asks, “When Should You Shoot A Cop?”

Yesterday, the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC — a division of the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety) reportedly released a bulletin announcing the chilling document that seems to endorse and justify the killing of law enforcement officers.

Copies of the “informational” letter were apparently left on a table with other documents to “educate” protesters at Occupy Phoenix. A bulletin that appears to be from the ACTIC notifies officers of the document, but says that no credible threats against law enforcement official have been uncovered (yet its investigation continues).

“The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “’in the line of duty,’ take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the ‘law enforcer’ was the bad guy and the ‘cop killer’ was the good guy,” the alleged document concludes. “As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.”

The Blaze reprints the flyer in its entirety.  The authors realize they’re broaching a question that “makes most ‘law abiding-taxpayers’ go into knee-jerk conniptions,” so they work hard to put the noble calling of cop-killing into a broad historical perspective:

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

I can’t see any harm coming from the more excitable members of the “Occupy” movement glaring at the cops coming to serve them lawful eviction orders, and seeing an equivalence with the jackbooted thugs of… well, history’s most accomplish redistributors of wealth.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right.

That’s a nice ideological hand grenade to pass along to a group of people who like to invent coercive “rights” to other peoples’ property off the top of their heads.  Do you get to kill anyone who opposes your “right” to free medical care?

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice – even if the injustice is called the “law” – that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on.

Unless you’re a dissenting citizen who resists a self-righteous group that decides to “occupy” some public property.  Then you’d better just shut up and let them do whatever they want, for as long as they want.  Don’t try entering the occupied area without their permission.  Also, if you’re excessively rich, as defined by whichever band of class-warfare vigilantes screams the loudest, and you resist the government agents who come to re-distribute your property, you deserve whatever you get.

The New York Post reported yesterday that Big Apple cops are getting tired of the astoundingly under-reported violence they’ve suffered at the hands of Occupy Wall Street protesters (over 20 police officers injured so far) and are clearly worried about it getting worse:

“Deeply concerned” police sergeants are coming out swinging today against obnoxious Wall Street protesters, saying they plan to “pursue legal action” against demonstrators who injure any of its members.

Ed Mullins, president of the NYPD’s Sergeant’s Benevolent Association, said his group plans to pursue legal claims against Occupy Wall Street protesters should they cause injury to any of its 5,000 members.

“In light of the growing violence attendant to the ‘Occupy’ movements across the country, particularly as evidenced by the recent events in Oakland, I am compelled to place these so-called ‘occupiers’ on notice that physical assaults on police officers will not be tolerated,” he said.

The Sergeant’s Benevolent Association will not be amused to learn of the decidedly non-benevolent brochures floating around Occupy Phoenix.

The unfortunate police officers who had to deal with the Occupy Oakland riots found themselves up against , as reported from the scene in the liberal Mother Jones:

As the protesters filtered away, I spoke with a group of tired cops covered in blue and orange paint—and that wasn’t all, said one sergeant who wouldn’t give his name. He said they’d also been pelted with glass and vinegar, and one officer claimed to have tasted urine in the mix. So how did tonight compare with others he’s seen? He laughed and said, “Well, it’s not quite a homicide.”

This was all said to be the handiwork of “rogue elements,” something repeated with increasing frequency in defense of the “Occupy” movement, by the same people who feverishly accused the Tea Party of complicity in the Tucson murders because of symbols on a map the killer never saw. 

The highbrow hypocrites tried to cover the embarrassing logical holes in their efforts to blame Tucson on conservatives by spilling gallons of ink over the awful “Climate of Hate” the right wing had supposedly created.  For some reason, they’re not terribly concerned about the climate at the “liberal Tea Party,” not even when there are scattered showers of cop-killing brochures. 

The “Occupy” enterprise does create a troubling “climate.”  For one thing, these occupations are stretching on for weeks, unlike the tidy Tea Party rallies that rented (and, unlike the Occupiers, paid for) assembly areas they only used for a day or two.  In fact, a Tea Party group in Virginia is demanding a refund for the $8000 it paid for permits, police, insurance, and amenities it was charged for three rallies over the course of three years, while Occupy Richmond has been camped in the same space non-stop since October 15 for free.

The whole concept of “occupation,” as frustrated Occupy organizers occasionally explain through bullhorns to bumbling liberal politicians who refuse to understand it, is aggressive and compulsive.  These people are not escaping from years of enforced silence, in which their First Amendment rights were somehow trampled.  Indeed, their beliefs have been widely championed in the media and popular culture for years, up to and including their grievances against banks.  What they’re doing is asserting a superior demand to be heard, not by exerting their free speech rights, but through aggressive defiance of civil law.  Let’s hope it doesn’t get any more aggressive.