I mentioned this subject before, without specifically discussing George Donnelly's first open-carry confrontation with State police/thugs. I was wondering if reopening the flamewar was a good idea, and noticed that David Z also made a post on the subject.
I'm referring to this incident. George Donnelly was open-carrying his gun. An off-duty policeman asked him for ID. George Donnelly refused. The confrontation escalated and George Donnelly was arrested.
According to State law, a policeman must otherwise suspect you of a specific crime in order to demand ID. However, State law also gives the policeman broad discretion when deciding to arrest someone.
Crimes like "disorderly conduct" or "disobeying the orders of a policeman" give the policeman a lot of discretion. If it turns out that the policeman made a mistake when arresting you, then there's usually no penalty for the policeman unless is was *EXTREMELY* bad police misconduct. George Donnelly isn't friends with State insiders like Henry Louis Gates, so his arrest isn't going to make national headlines.
How effective were George Donnelly's tactics?
Inconvenience to George Donnelly: a lot
Inconvenience to State policeman/thug: zero or negative
The off-duty policeman might have actually have profited by arresting him, because police get paid overtime when they arrest someone and stay on past the end of their shift.
Also, the police want to believe "People who open-carry are a bunch of fruitcakes and homegrown terrorists!" Non-policemen carrying a gun directly threaten the State's core monopoly, its violence monopoly. His coworkers were probably congratulating the policeman "You did a great job handling that fruitcake who was open-carrying!"
Even if they aren't consciously aware of it, State thugs know that open-carriers threaten their core violence monopoly. Plus, open-carriers are more likely to understand "Taxation is theft!"
Regrettably, I can't get a gun permit. First, NYC is incredibly restrictive regarding gun ownership, about as bad as Washington DC. Second, I'm permanently barred from getting a gun permit because I was involuntarily hospitalized with a mental illness. Based on a one-minute evaluation by an incompetent "doctor", I permanently lost my right to ever own a gun. I don't get a trial, nor do I get the right to appeal.
I probably could lie on a gun permit application and nobody would notice. Or, I could tell the truth and challenge it in court once rejected. However, that would require knowing a lawyer who'd represent me for free, or be willing to waste a lot of time representing myself, probably fruitlessly. Ironically, I have less rights than a convicted criminal, who can get pardoned. A criminal at least gets a jury trial.
That's another interesting question? Would it be immoral for me to lie on a gun permit application, in the place where they ask you if you were ever involuntarily hospitalized? It isn't immoral to lie, but it isn't worth the risk of possibly getting caught, especially if I plan to be an advocate for both agorism and that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud.
I don't really need a gun anyway. Common criminals shouldn't be a real problem if you're careful, and State police outnumber me. I could always pay someone with a permit to keep an extra gun for me, to be delivered in a SHTF scenario.
I shouldn't worry about common criminals stealing my property and savings! I was already robbed of a huge chunk of my savings via inflation and a declining stock market!
Henry Louis Gates is an "African American Studies" professor, which means that his job is to promote racism. By escalating a minor incident into an arrest, he improves his "academic credibility". Henry Louis Gates psychologically manipulated the white policeman into arresting him.
Similarly, George Donnelly psychologically manipulated the policeman into arresting him. Does getting arrested for open-carrying and refusing to show ID improve your "anarchist credibility"?
I already know that the State is one big scam. I don't need a confrontation with State thugs as proof. Besides, I already was kidnapped and tortured by State murderers.
You should treat the State like you would a crazy person on the subway. Do you:
1. Ignore them.I choose (1), but apparently George Donnelly would pick (2).
2. Pick a fight with them.
For example, while typing this on the subway, I noticed someone pretending to be homeless begging for change. It would have been pointless to point out that he's a fraud. I would have gained nothing, and I might have been injured. I said nothing.
There is no significant difference between the crazy guy on the subway and a policeman or State thug/bureaucrat. The only difference is that one is acting alone, and the other has many allies and resources. Plus, the State parasite has conned many people into supporting them by giving them money.
If nobody gave money to people begging on the subway, then there wouldn't be beggars on the subway! If nobody voluntarily paid taxes, then the scam would rapidly collapse. The State relies on the voluntary compliance of most people, combined with lots of resources spent cracking down on those who seek freedom. If only a tiny fraction seek freedom, then it's feasible to try and crack down on most/all of them.
This is a very important point. A State thug/bureaucrat should be treated like a dangerous crazy retarded person. You should not seek out a confrontation with such a lunatic. If there is a potential confrontation, you should prevent it from escalating, if possible.
Unless you're prepared to murder the policeman who demands your ID for open-carrying, and then murder/evade the inevitable hunt for you, you have to submit or otherwise defuse a potential confrontation.
Such a confrontation would not be possible in a really free market. If you said "I'm a customer of the FSK police agency!", that would usually be enough. Besides, you wouldn't be allowed in a restaurant in the first place if you were dangerous.
On a strict logical level, George Donnelly was correct. However, the State policeman evaluated George Donnelly's body language after the ID request. George Donnelly's body language was hostility, and the policeman responded with hostility.
It escalated just like on "The Dog Whisperer", when two dogs in an aggressive/dominant mental state meet.
I have sympathy to people who are the victim of State violence. However, you should not intentionally seek/escalate a confrontation.
Pursuing a complaint against the policeman via the State is an obvious waste of time. You have to distinguish between effective resistance and a waste of time and energy.
It seems obviously stupid for George Donnelly filing a complaint against the policeman via the State legal system. What does he expect them to say? "You're right. The policeman acted inappropriately." If you expect that to happen, you really are a fool.
For example, suppose I went to the emergency room and started cursing at the people working there, complaining that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a mistake. What do you think would happen? Even though I am right, directly confronting State-licensed thugs is a waste of time.
It's important to encourage effective resistance. It's important to point out when someone picks an ineffective resistance strategy.
If I lived in an open-carry friendly city, and didn't have the legal obstacle to getting a permit, I'd probably get a gun. I wouldn't move just for that. Most big US cities have very restrictive gun control laws.
It isn't worth a confrontation with police over a minor issue. The policeman doesn't have the legal right to ask for ID. If your body language is going to be hostile when the policeman asks, then the confrontation is going to escalate. If you're going to refuse to show ID, you have to *ALSO* make sure that your body language doesn't get hostile. Then, the policeman probably will back down.
George Donnelly was with a gun instructor. The gun instructor was partially responsible. He should have just told the policeman "He's OK. He's with me." and then it probably wouldn't have escalated.
If you're the victim of State violence, then seeking justice in a State court is really stupid. You're free to try. You're a fool if you don't realize that's probably a waste of time. Intentionally escalating a confrontation with State thugs is a waste of time. The State has a lot more resources than you. You'll be wasting a lot of time, while the State thugs collect a paycheck and possible overtime, paid by taxes/theft.
Stupid resistance tactics don't deny they State resources. The State is one big scam, but you have to use proper tactics.
3 comments:
Donnelley seems to be living in a fantasy-world where he feels he can act on his fantasy-world principles and not get squashed. One wonders where he choses to draw the line, because if he lived by all of his principles he would have been squashed long ago.
There are circumstances where civil disobedience can work, but usually it pertains to when you have a good portion of the populace behind you and willing to participate, and when you do it strategically and not on a whim like Donnelley did. Such as what these heroes did:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027257_hemp_America_farmers.html
The worst part of Donnelley's pointless foolishness is that he's egging on the State to further encroach on all our liberties. As one poster pointed out to him, rightly, that there might be a new "Donnelley's Law" from all this that prohibits oepn carry altogether.
>Would it be immoral for me to lie on a gun permit application, in the place where they ask you if you were ever involuntarily hospitalized?
It wouldn't necessarily be lying. You were crying out for help, even if only on a subsconscious level, and the State goons came to your aid in your hour of need (or so they would claim). Little did you know what kind of "help" they had in store for you.
>If you're the victim of State violence, then seeking justice in a State court is really stupid.
True. But if the State maniacs drag you into their kangaroo court, it helps to have some intellectual weapons at your disposal to defend yourself with. People like Marc Stevens have been very successful in using logic, reason and the facts to hoist the State by its own petard on their own turf and getting them to leave you alone (which is the goal). It involves exposing how the State's claim that government is instituted to protect and mantain individual rights is nothing but public relations and a lie. It's worth looking into.
Anyway, good blog entry.
How do you know what my body language was? Right there you made a big assumption without any knowledge that renders the foundation for at least some of your conclusions non-weight-bearing.
I am accountable to no one but my self and my family. Therefore I will not waste my breath explaining or correcting you further.
I will simply say that your post is full of assumptions, outright lies, it's presentation of the information on the surrounding events is incomplete and as such is of considerably lower quality than your normal posts. This is where I compare you to the mainstream media and how they always get the story wrong and skew it to fit their own prejudices. Very disappointing.
The part where you rationalize your decision not to exercise your gun rights is unexpected.
Post a Comment