Police State
In a recent January 4, 2012 article in the News Gazette, titled, “Tensions over June 5 arrest still at a boil”, it was reported that tensions between the Champaign police department and some of the city’s leadership, was continuing to escalate over the brutal arrest of a jaywalker.
We see in this situation, the primary threat to our democratic way of life and the freedoms for which millions have given the ultimate sacrifice to maintain. Wherein an evolving police state now rises in earnest and begins to challenge those who would dare question their authority over us all.
There is no defining moment when America began this decline into an authoritarian regime, no single event that changed the course of our society. It can however be stated with some certainty that when our police ceased to be those who “Protect and Serve” and became “Enforcement”, we created an alternate belief system that now empowers and emboldens a new generation.
Our local Enforcement agencies are today based upon military style tactics, militarized systems and ultra secure communications, wherein a “them-and-us” paradigm is created. It is a highly profitable lifestyle with pay in the upper income levels of our society, comprised of cloistered members who are more than willing to “watch the back” of their fellow comrades and agencies, while having little fear of oversight or inquiry.
With the introduction of the PATRIOT Act that stripped Americans of their Constitutional rights and subsequent Czar of Homeland Security who controls something called the NSA (National Security Agency), a seamless Gestapo style apparatus has been created. An integrated and highly secure National Enforcement system that accounts to no one and cannot be overseen by the citizens it dominates.
Under the ruse of “Terrorism”, a megalithic system of control and domination has been created, now culminating in the military’s recent ability to hold indefinitely, without charges or notification of location, any citizen the government deems is an enemy of the state. In addition, Federal legislation is currently being introduced that would strip the citizenship from those who would be a threat to the state.
Our military, has over the last 10 years of Middle East warfare, created many weapons for urban conflict that are now well tested and have been distributed among the three military brigades now permanently assigned to American soil.
Some of these urban control weapons are now being offered to local Enforcement and Federal funding continues to flow, so as to assure complete penetration of all communities across the country. Systems and processes rarely mentioned, never talked about and closely guarded as secret.
There is a reason why Enforcement does not want citizen review groups. Why laws are in place that make it a crime to record in any manner, the public activities of Enforcement personnel. And why citizens are not allowed to monitor or audit the secure communications that empower the secret world of Enforcement.
To question or challenge this growing power is to invite scrutiny of your life. I would advise the City of Champaign leadership to tread carefully in these matters and if they choose to continue, be prepared to become “a person of interest” as I have. To expect tapped communications, inquired accounts and acquaintances interviewed, as none of these today require warrants by Enforcement when dealing with threats against the state.
And according to Federal Governmental guidelines for local Enforcement training, anyone who challenges authority, makes references to Constitutional Rights and questions official governmental explanations of events, is to be classified as a threat to the state.
So the next time you have to stop at a Enforcement roadblock, euphemistically called a “roadside check”, just do as your told, provide the proper papers, answer the questions without a hint of resentment in being detained without probable cause and just maybe you’ll be allowed to go on about your business.
“"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”” ~ Abraham Lincoln (January 27, 1838)
Hyperbolic, indeed, are the above persons, in their honest opinions.
A police state is one thing, a policed state quite another.
There is a fine, nuanced, well reasoned difference between the two, a difference easy to dismiss, if you pay no attention to details, like the rule of law, of what it implies, so vastly, to humanity and its rights.
Yes, I quite agree, for instance, that the Homeland Security laws, the so-called "Patriot Act" infringes upon Constitutionally protected rights.
Butr, that is not the end of the question, but the beginning of an argument, a public debate, as to whether We the People prefer to surrender some of our ideas of our rights, temporarily, to be sure, in order to achieve greater security for the rest of our rights?
I have a right, for instance, to live without fear that a terrorist will wantonly kill me.
That is a right far more important to me than my right to be free of many of the intrusions upon my liberty that the Patriot Act invites.
So, what is the balance, in a democracy, of authority, responsibility and liberty?
We are not anything other than a democracy, a democratic republic --
we are not anything at all like a police state -- despite all of the overly emotional, less than rational hyperbole of the preceding writers.
When has a right ever been restored after being taken from the people? There are so many miniscule laws that the police can use to stop and question you for. If you assert your right not to tell them ehre you have been, what you are doing and where you are going, you get arrested for resisting. This is indeed a police state whether you want to admit it or not.
Good point. Our rights were never given to us, we had to fight to get them.
Which president was it that said that when we have a government that fears us, that is a democracy, but when we have a givernment that we fear, that is tyranny (or fascism). Sounds like something Jefferson would say.
IMHO, again we get the government that we deserve. For decades any politician that didn't stress how 'tough on crime' he was was unelectable. So step-by-step, tougher laws got tougher, long prison sentences got longer, the police wielded more and more power, their power became more militarized. And the courts fell in right line as well, making it easier on the police (declaring that they don't legally have to protect you) and harder on the perp, which resulted in half of death row inmates being found to be innocent after the discovery of DNA abilities, besides filling our prisons with those who didn't hve the means to hire a lawyer, as well as non-violent, victimless offenders.
It's a monster of our own creation and apathy sustains it.
I can not, will not, should not be associated with any idea contrary to the rule of law.
I have to say that, my friends, even though I most strenuously oppose some of the bills that have been enacted and might even be upheld by courts of law, even the most suspect court, the Supreme Court.
So, what is the rule of law, if courts, even high and highest courts do not say what it is?
The rule of law is reason, guided toward justice, recklessly disregarding power's demands, a rule full of humility and mercy.
That is why Bush v Gore, for example, was a travesty of the rule of law,
That is why every decision of the present Supreme Court is flawed, because they have no regard at all for the rule of law, in the formation of their opinions, in their very decisions.
Law enforcement is nonsense, a silly tyranny, but harmful, too, unless one looks to the oversight of it. It is true, this proverb -- that armed people are a danger, not just to the State, but to anyone unarmed. Police are armed but need they be? And, even so, how?
Ther ideal of a civilized society is that one need not and should not be armed.
That is an ideal we venture ever further from, when we reinforce primal ideas of self protection, such as root in the NRA's doctrines, aqs against when the community's needs of self-protection, of subordination of individuality to collective need, are systematically ignored.
So, the Supreme Court ignores the rule of law, of reason itself.
How do respond, my friends?
Do we drop out?
Or, as I argue, do we stay active, politically, ever hoping to reason, to persuade others of what is reasonable, of what is right, in the light of reason?
With some trepidation, I reply to my own comment.
I aim to re-inspire you, despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
What I believe matters, to this debate.
I believe, generally, in authority, and its agents.
Why I so believe, generally, is a complicated matter, of experience, education, evaluation.
It's a guarded matter, a standard of reason, even.
I believe, for instance, that the police are overwhelmingly committed to the rule of law, even if they sometimes adopt practices contrary to the reason of the rule of law, even if, then, they become illegal zealots.
For, so I believe, reason is ever stronger and more enduring than any present, even persisting, defect in its practice.
That is what hope, belief, in humanity entails, the idea of persistence in asserting what is right, what is decent, what is honorable and humane, what is justice.
The courts of conscience are never closed to such just appeals, even if we must repeatedly stand to call out the rightness of our views to minds once closed to our views.
I can find nothing in your post to disagree with.
Yes, your beliefs and input matters.
You seem pretty guarded for whatever reason, I care not.
You posted correctly elsewhere that basically cops are merely mortals, they put on their pants one leg at a time.
I have observed a rather disturbing circumstance that you haven't touched on, and that is the increasing militarization of local police. I understand that for many years now the federal government has been making alleged surplus military equipment available to local police forces and wonder if some cops might carry the 'soldier' image too far in response.
Contrary to the oft repeated adage that 'power corrupts,' I believe that is not necessarily so. Rather, power provides the opportunity to be corrupt. Mother Theresa (R.I.P.) won a Nobel Prize, yet undoubtedly had not a corrupt bone in her body. Yet an un-named Conservation Officer is known to have the attitude that he would arrest his own mother, should there be any evidence, questionable or not,against her, just because he can.
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of police officers are mature, cool, calm, and collected. But being human, some invariably are too quick to pull out the pepper spray or Tazer. You don't have to search too deply in the internet to find videos of bad cops in action. We just have to realize, as I think most do, that these are the exceptions to the norm.
In any case, DLE, carry on. I do enjoy reading your thoughtful opinions and appreciate your input.
Wow! Where to begin? How about at the beginning? What made the US government unique among all other countries of the world is that ours was a government ruled by law, as opposed to rule by men. So let's use as a starting point the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Firstly I would like to address your opening sentence, that you 'can not, will not, should not be associated with any idea contrary to the rule of law.' Any 'idea?' Really? So, in your opinion, 'thought crimes' are legitimate? Reading on, I assume that you are stating this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. At least I hope so. If you 'strenuously oppose' some laws that have been enacted and deemed to be legitimate by the courts, then you would seem to fit in the category of having thoughts that are, in your words, 'contrary to the rule of law.' I dunno, maybe I'm being too nit-picky. Sorry, I'm rather anxious to move on.
'...It is true, this proverb -- that armed people are a danger, not just to the State, but to anyone unarmed.' Sorry again, but this is the first time in sixty years that I've heard a proverb that states that. According to my understanding, our Founding Fathers provided the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny, which they had experienced and, yes, can only be imposed by the State. One of them stated, and I need to defrag my brain to be exact, that 'a government that fears it's citizens is a good government, a government that the citizens fear is tyranny.' Others have said that the Right given by the Second Amendment protects all of the Rights of the others. Furthermore, the 'Right to bear arms,' provided by the Second Amendment in the minds of those Founding Fathers wasn't limited to pistols, rifles, and shotguns. They intended for the citizenry to have the same capabilities to defend the Constitution as those with even more powerful weapons who threatened it. That point, however, is never discussed when debating gun control issues. Of course those wise authors over two hundred years ago were well aware that there would be individuals that willingly murder people with guns, but the freedom for individuals to protect themselves and their country (the big picture) should not be sacrificed because of crazed individuals who have been present throughout mankinds history.
And to state that armed individuals are a threat to those unarmed is simply wrong. In more recent times I believe it was Florida that enacted the first concealed-carry laws about a decade ago. Of course there was the usual knee-jerk reaction by the media, which caused many people to likewise jerk their knees in response (just as they've been conditioned to do), that incidents of road-rage would escalate into shootouts, innocent people would die being mistaken for perps, etc. But that didn't happen at all did it? In fact, just the opposite outcome resulted. Crime went down when thugs could no longer count on law-abiding citizens being unarmed. A you should well know, Chicago-controlled Illinois now stands as the only state that doesn't permit law-abiding citizens a right to self-protection in some manner. There are at least nine lengthy studies that have been publicized after going over all the pertinent data since Florida chose to decriminalize concealed-carry by law-abiding citizens. It has simply become impossible to ignore the facts, NRA or any gun lobbying group notwithstanding. To ignore the truth is to put yourself in peril. Primal, indeed... It seems that you're looking through rose-colored glasses, at least on this subject. Reality is not constraining your idealism.
Logic must prevail over what one hopes or wishes. I was once in a group that included our Sheriff. I don't know why I assumed that he was against concealed-carry, but made some comment that he was. He was quick to correct me on that point. 'Criminals have them, why shouldn't good citizens also?' he asked. As I said...logic... 10,000,000 guns were sold in the US last year alone. Ya think that you can 'wish' them away?
To believe the law is wrong is one thing.
To belive it can be corrected is another.
To believe the State is mistaken, then, is an implication, of the above beliefs, but an incomplete argument, to be sure.
One has to reason, in such matters, dually, as it were, to ask basically a fundamental question, not as to how matters might be, ideally, but as to how good it might be, how good could it get?
Don't misunderstand my pragmatism.
Idealism guides me, realism constrains me, humility balances me to accept circumstances.
Yes, the police state is a potentiality, but it is an overfraught one, in the present facts, pure hyperbole, if you will, if you will go and talk to police officers. Presently, and probably forever, they are just guys like you and me, just doing their jobs, as best they can, under the operating rules they have been given, by the guys over them, who are, so it happens, no more authoritarian than you or I may may be.
So, that's me. I know the "system" personally, even if I don't like it and wish it were better and sometimes even say something relevant, to improve it.
I don't oppose it, would preserve it, and resent all those comments that are simply anarchistic, offering us no specific better idea of how things could be improved.
You state:
'Idealism guides me, realism constrains me, humility balances me to accept circumstances.'
And
'So, that's me. I know the "system" personally, even if I don't like it and wish it were better and sometimes even say something relevant, to improve it.'
Aren't you contradicting yourself? By 'saying something relevant, to improve it,' then you're not 'accepting circumstances.' Am I wrong?
The question is a matter of faith, non-religious, to be sure, but of simple faith, of how you regard others, faceless, unknown, perhaps unknowable.
You can say, perhaps, that I beleive in nothing that is not me. Or, you can follow me, not in a leap of logic, but in a leap of faith, that others are necessarily just like you and me, fully equal, in every sense, or not?
As a liberal, I most firmly believe in the idea of equality, and the rule of reason, the rule of law, itself, as a consequence -- for reason says our differing interests must be balanced, because we are equal; and the rule of law informs itself well when it makes that fact of reason efficiently operational, effective in a society. How do we differ, how do we agree?
(By the way, the fact that I absolutely believe that guns are dangerous only goes to the questions of responsibility, of how we might allocate the burdens of them, by the choices we make. I'm not against gun rights; indeed, I think many gun control laws are simply ill conceived, follish, such as those in Chicago, certainly those in DC, for plain examples. That does not at all mitigate the idea of responsibility, of responsible persons -- and, there, in every right, to be responsible, you find the duty to be so, as well. But, all that is merely obvious, in the logic of the circumstances, that responsibility may be individualistic, in practice, as an ideal, but, in fact, has to be enforced, by a society, to be taken seriously.) That's what informs the idea of self government, that some selves infamously fail at it.)
Hinted at, in my parenthesized seque, is just this idea, about faith in others -- can you really trust yourself, can you do what you know is just and right, or are you not only tempted to do what you know is wrong, but actually sometimes doing what you know is wrong?
I do not trust myself to always do what I know is right, and I know, too, that I've not always done what the right would demand of me.
Maybe you're a person who has never so sinned. God bless, if so.
But, if you're a mere mortal like me, then maybe, too, you'e a bit more humble, a bit more willing to accept that others should have some say about your actions, your motives, your influences upon others.
That's what the rule of law supplies. Yes, law is a tyrrany, a tyrrany of the many against the one, the guy or gal who has no regardingness for the interests of any other; law is a tyrrany, thus said, only because of the merciless logic of mere rhetorical manipulations, that ever operate to oppress reason.
It is the extraneous force, of love, perhaps, that guides reason, to find the right rules of law, never supposing the presently expressed orders of law are themselves right, just, ever recognizing the differences, between individual interests and collective interests, and yet finding in them common ground, because, at the end of the day, at every dawn, throughout life, we must, so I believe, find ways to live with one another.
Those ways are the rule of law, abstractly taken, regardless of what the present rules of law may hapopen to be.
So, I am medieval, romantic, idealistic, even absolutistically so. Law is not made by man, but discoverable by him, and, even so, not perfectly discovered (for, I believe, no man has the mind of the alleged God, the alleged author of evolution, which causes all things to be as they may happen to be, unless a freely willing being (anyone?) causes things to be otherwise... LoL.)
In light of the recent controversies over the behavior of some Champaign Police officers, it may be wise to review a few rules when confronted by a police officer. In the interest of citizen safety, these following guidelines were developed while living as a poor person and having had numerous police contacts:
1) Upon immediate sight of an approaching police officer either on foot or in a squad car,
put your hands up, palms facing the officer, in a similar gesture that you would use as if you were being robbed.
2) Keep your hands up like in Step 1 during your entire encounter with the officer and stay perfectly still. Remember the officer is armed with a deadly weapon, in addition to a baton and pepper spray. You don't know if the officer is in the middle of a divorce, or is on steroids, just returned from Iraq, enjoys getting violent, or has a mental problem. Keeping your hands up where they can see them will reassure the officer you mean no harm.
3) When answering questions from the officer, talk slowly and clearly, like you would to a 5-year-old bully. Maintaining eye contact and speaking slowly will help the officer understand what is going on before them: that you are an unarmed pedestrian who is expected to be seen shortly by other humans.
4) If the officer demands personal identification, do not move and keep your hands up, and don't reach for your wallet until:
a) You've explained slowly where the wallet is on your person (i.e. "my wallet is in my back pocket")
b) You've asked permission to retrieve your wallet from the pocket
c) While keeping your hands up, turn to the side and explain to the officer what you are about to do. (i.e. "Okay, I'm going to reach into my back pocket now and with only two fingers and I'm going to slowly pull my wallet out. May I do this, sir?")
d) Wait until the officer gives you permission to begin retrieving your wallet. Remember to keep your other hand up. You will notice that most police officers have had their hand gently resting on their gun or on the pepper spray. That's why it is important to move slowly at all times and concentrate on keeping your hands where they can see them at all times. If two officers are stopping you, maintain eye contact with the officer who is speaking. Do not look at the other "quiet, menacing officer" who is just standing there with his hands on his weapons, for he may intimidate you and make you lose concentration. Think of the quiet officer as a very dangerous dog who may attack at any moment. As long as you move slowly and do what the speaking officer tells you to do, the quiet officer won't bite.
5) If one of the officers has been shining a blinding flashlight in your eyes, you are probably in the presence of a hostile rogue officer. It's important not to complain about the flashlight and looking down eases the pain on your eyes. If the light is preventing you from complying with the speaking officer's demands, explain slowly that you can't see to complete the order, punctuating your sentences with "sir" as often as possible.
6) Once your wallet is out, present it like you would a plate of food out in front of you with both hands. Tell the officer slowly, what you are about to do next, that you are about to open your wallet now, to find your identification. Ask for permission before doing so.
7) Realize your civil rights are about to be raped. Accept it. Your identification is going to be checked for warrants by the speaking officer in his squad car. This will take approximately 5-10 minutes, depending how complicated you are. The quiet, menacing officer will remain standing off to your side, guarding you like the dangerous dog he is. Put your hands back up in the "robbed" position and don't move. Do not attempt idle small talk with the quiet officer. They do not have a personality anyway, and are only there to kick your ass if needed. Just look down, stay still, and keep your hands up where he can see them. If the quiet officer becomes annoyed by your gesture and tells you to put your hands down, do so, but keep your palms out in front of your legs. Never put your hands in your pockets, behind you, or out of sight from the quiet officer.
8) The speaking officer will return with your I.D. and give it back to you. Hold the I.D. in the palm of your hand out in front of you and put your other hand back up. Listen to what the speaking officer says next. You may be asked a series of personal questions, like, a) what is your social security number? b) where do you work? c) what is your current address? d) what is your telephone number? e) who do you live with? f) where are you going now? g) Did you happen to see _____? h) Were you just at this address __________? i) Can I search you and your bag? ect. Welcome to the drug war and homeland security, post 9-11. You will notice that the officer is writing this information down in a little notebook and may have told you a white lie that he is required to ask you these questions as part of his job. The temptation is to go all "Johnny Cochrane" on them and protest that the officers have no right to ask you such things. You're right of course, but you are not in a court room television show; you are on the street, alone with some very dangerous people who will kick your ass and arrest you for resisting a non-existent arrest. It is quicker to answer the questions slowly for them and realize your information is being entered into what's called the ARMS database, a computer system that helps police departments track every person they ever talked to. If you insist on fighting for the American way of life to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, then you can politely offer to the officers that you are not comfortable answering the questions and you would rather submit to being arrested now and will invoke your right to remain silent. Make sure you offer this option politely.
Always remember that you are being audio recorded. Police officers carry digital audio recorders on their person nowadays and it is on. Everything you say, is being documented, and will be used against you if necessary. If you are in the presence of a rogue officer, there may be attempts to provoke you into a physical confrontation. Insults to your intelligence, your race or gender, disbelief of your story, accusations that you committed a crime are all fair game during questioning while being detained. Unfortunately, some rogue officers are not content to let you remain calm to questions and will attempt to conduct a rough and humiliating search. The Supreme Court has allowed for strip searches if the officer claims you are a threat to their safety. There is nothing you can do about it, and your arguments against will only further their hostility. Hopefully, if you've been polite at the front end, the attempt to search will be disregarded.
Chances are you will simply be told to go home and not to let the officers catch you around here for the rest of the night. Most officers are lazy and do not want to haul you to jail for not answering questions they wouldn't answer either if they were in your shoes. If you are homeless, walk far away from the area, and find a place to hide for the rest of the evening.
There is also the possibility that the officers stopping you are actually honest, hardworking people who are simply doing their job as best they can. You are being "checked out" because the officers are acting on some prior information, or because you look like you need some kind of help. As you follow the above rules, good officers will recognize you are harmless, and will quickly try to get you to relax for there is no danger and will explain why they are stopping you. Fairly shortly, you can talk about the evening, the last ball game, or what the crazy spouse did to you. These type of officers will give you several recommendations on where you can get help or a good beer. If they have time, they might give you a ride somewhere, or even buy you a sandwich. There are some officers who are like this, and you should genuinely thank them for their fine service. Every police force has some of these officers.
But until officers prove they are honestly there to serve and protect, including you, assume first that you are dealing with a dysfunctional bully who likes effing people up.
Following the above rules, while not at all protecting your civil rights, might keep you safe from the police in the short run. If you don't like these practical rules for handling the police, you can risk retaliation by complaining later to your city council, human relations commission, police department, citizens review board, or the media about improper police behavior. Shortly after registering your complaint, expect to be followed in your car and given a traffic ticket, or frequent drive-bys at your house, or some informant offering you drugs. Civil rights aren't cheap and rogue officers don't appreciate you messing with their career.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.