There are a number of things that still bother me about the arrest of Roger Stone at his home before dawn a few days before this writing. When police officers where shot trying to enter the home of some bad guys the day that Stone was set to appear in court to make a plea, four were wounded by gunfire and even Laura Ingraham on Fox News contemplated how bad it was that often residents have more firepower in their homes than the police. The police officers after all were just doing their jobs and serving a narcotics warrant. For a while there was wall to wall coverage of the action but the key issue was not discussed. What right did the police have to enter the home of suspects? Who decides who bad guys are and how can the state impose itself on the individual rights of its citizens with the assumption that everything the state touches can be taken away in a moment’s notice if that state decides that the greater good is in jeopardy?
I am of the thinking that Roger Stone should have held his ground and retaliated against the FBI agents who assaulted him in the early morning hours. After all, we know the FBI is corrupt so what good is any warrant that they issue. The Bob Mueller investigation is an attempted insurrection of an American President. They are bending the law to use as a weapon against political enemies, so why should Roger Stone go quietly upon being assaulted. He had no record of firearm ownership and there was no reason to attack him the way the FBI did in a predawn raid to show that the “state” had power over the individual which was the real message. It was a forceful exchange to show who was the boss, even over presidents of the United States.
In Houston, Texas neighbors had reported the sale from a home of black tar heroin so the police came to arrest the suspects. Now I’m not a guy who has any tolerance for drugs or their sale. I think drug dealers should be prosecuted for attempted murder, even for the sale of marijuana, so I am not lax in my judgement on drug use and sales. But our own CIA has been very actively involved in pushing drugs into cultures for control reasons, so what makes the two guys who opened fire on the invading police any different from world governments who also sell drugs? Not much in my book, they are all bad people. So with that off the table of consideration what gave the police the right to break down the front door and enter the home of these people in Houston? The shots weren’t fired until the police entered the home. Why would anybody expect any other result?
It was obvious to me that Laura Ingraham on Fox News was a mixed bag of emotions. I had just appeared on one of her shows just last week over the Covington Catholic case and I know she is a very hard-core conservative, but it was she who suggested that it was a shame that bad guys in homes often have better weapons than the police and that its sad that police are sometimes shot just for doing their jobs. Well, doing jobs doesn’t give a free pass to an abusive state government that has forgotten that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect individual rights and property is one of the centerpieces of that argument.
The same approach is used when getting pulled over by a police officer, they shine that bright light on you and approach the vehicle as if they owned it and you inside are required to be a compliant citizen. You are expected to recognize that your rights are subject to the judgment of law enforcement and their protection of the “greater good.” Well, none of that “greater good” talk is in the Constitution. I would argue that law enforcement officers are not capable of such judgments, they are not philosophically equipped and are illiterate in the matter. So what gives them the right to confiscate private property and to kick down doors to homes just because a neighbor called in a report?
I couldn’t help but think that the news coverage of the shooting was part of the problem, immediately the news was reported with a tinge of sadness at how dangerous police work was and how you never know what’s on the other side of a door to a house. That same assumption was made by the FBI in how they set up Roger Stone with an embarrassing CNN recording of the actual raid of his home. Of course, the FBI hoped to tap into people’s ingrained sense of yielding to authorities as they watched Stone be handcuffed and taken into custody. The message of course if it can happen to Stone it can happen to all of us, so you better answer the door and yield to authorities when they come for you. And when the Houston shootings occurred even Fox News jumped on the bandwagon of state rule and decided that the police were sad victims of violence without really knowing the details. Oddly enough, the news story was almost completely gone just 10 hours later.
The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution does not indicate that we must all yield to the authority of the state. The employees of the state make mistakes all the time and just because they issue a warrant against you that does not give them the right to enter your home and arrest you on your property. They do not have the right to take your car if they suspect you of some crime and they certainly don’t have the right to spy on you maliciously. The safety of the state does not supersede our rights as individuals. Only lawyers and judges over time have muddied the waters on Constitutional interpretation with loose case-law that has created a belief that the police have such rights of intrusion. But in reality, they don’t. The police who kick down doors to serve paperwork from the state are just as bad as the drug dealers who generate suspicion to generate such paperwork. Just because police officers have a warrant for an arrest it doesn’t give them the right to kick down doors and confiscate property and rights. Warrants can be served without violence, yet the state requires violence on occasion to build up the public perception of conformity, and that is not the spirit of the American Constitution.
As much as people don’t like President Trump, while I am a very loyal supporter, he certainly is a centrist especially in regard to police and military use. I disagree with him very much when it comes to police and elements of state control of law enforcement. As I’ve said many times, I am very much of an Anti-Federalist mindset when it comes to law and order. I don’t trust people to make the right decisions about their peers. If police kick down the door to your house or violate your independence within your car while traveling about in the realm of commerce, then you have a right to defend yourself, pure and simple. And when that doesn’t happen, arrogant bastards like Robert Mueller get cocky and think they can get away with arresting big names like Roger Stone to not only punish him, but to send a message to all of us—resistance is futile. Obey the state. And that is precisely where our modern times have gone wrong.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.