How much force should be used to “prevent” crime?

Is that you Andy?  This is the face of the change in hope and change.

Is that you Andy? The change in hope and change.

Think about about how many minor “crimes” you or someone you know might have technically committed but didn’t get caught. Crime occurs everyday. Criminals get away with crimes all the time. What level of force is justified to prevent crime and to “catch criminals”?

If a criminal is thought to be hiding in a neighborhood, is it okay to “lock the whole neighborhood down” with armored personnel carriers and snipers and go house to house searching? Say it’s a “shoplifter”? How about a burglar? How about even a murderer? Most people say no. But of course this is exactly what the state did in Boston, and people didn’t utter a peep.  I find that to be absurd. But some people are so brainwashed they actually want to give the state that kind of power.

Shelter in place.  It's the american way.

Shelter in place. It’s the new American Staycation.

I don’t want to give that power to the state for a variety of reasons. One, because the state lies all the time. That is what politicians and government people do. They lie to people. So we can’t even know if anything they are telling us about the alleged criminal is even true.

How about if the state says that they “suspect” a “criminal”, is hiding in a house. Is it okay to shoot an RPG into it and blow it up? Why not? Why is that not reasonable? I mean they said he was a criminal. Maybe even an alleged murderer.

Well, it’s not reasonable for so many reasons, First and foremost, once again, because we don’t even KNOW the person DID ANYTHING. There has been no trial. Just a claim from the state. DNA results have freed hundreds and hundreds, many on death row. The state was wrong. The state is often wrong, and we have no idea whether it was intentional or whether the state just made a mistake. But either way they were wrong.

There are so many problems with allowing the state that massive power. What if there are other people in the house? Just assume for fantasy sake, that we all KNOW with 100% certainty that the person in the house is guilty of murder. But we don’t KNOW if they have their kids in the house with them, or some neighbor is visiting and has their kids with them. Would it be okay then to go ahead and blow up the house?

This is the penalty now for alleged peaceful unlicensed possession of firearm.

This is the government’s response to unlicensed possession of a firearm.  Seems reasonable.

I seriously doubt anyone is on board with having the cops blow up a house that might have innocent people in it, even if we KNOW there is a murderer in there. Because that is MURDER. You wouldn’t be any different than who you were supposedly trying to catch or punish. But isn’t an RPG basically what the ATF did to the branch Davidians in Waco when they burned the place to the ground with innocent people inside who weren’t even CHARGED with a crime? Of course it is.

Here's the person responsible for killing those people.  She of course walks free, because she was a government agent.

Janet Reno, the government agent responsible for killing those people.  No charges.

And was anyone in the government tried for murder there? No. Nothing at all happened except for a meaningless investigation with no actual punishment. Janet Reno wasn’t even fired let alone tried for murder. Nobody was. Get it? That’s what giving the state the power looks like.

Okay, so we agree that just blowing up a house because there is allegedly a criminal hiding in there is not reasonable. In fact, can we agree that it is not even civilized? It is outrageous. Barbaric. Only the most insane people would support having officials running around blowing up houses and then claiming that they had “gotten criminals” who were hiding inside.

Let me ask you. If you disagree, and you are in favor of “allowing” the government to simply blow someone up because the government claim’s they are a “criminal”, would you agree to sign a document that gave the government a right to blow YOU or your family up if sometime in the future they claimed you were a criminal? I highly doubt it. Nobody would. And if you’re sane, and think about it for a minute, then you understand that you don’t let the government do that to anyone, because once they claim the AUTHORITY to do it to someone, well, you could be next. Any of us could

Tommy Boy demonstrates the latest sales incentive technique. The ultimate win or go "home".

Tommy Boy demonstrates the latest sales incentive technique. The ultimate win or go “home”.

So let’s look at trying to “prevent crime”. There can be no doubt that gangs congregate in certain areas, certain houses and certain neighborhoods. No doubt. In fact there are whole neighborhoods where they encourage gangs. Encourage and actively create gangs, gang members, and gang crime. Whole generations of families involved in gangs. Large amounts of crime comes directly from these areas. Both crimes that have been committed, and crimes that certainly WILL be committed. I think everyone agrees to that.

Why don’t we simply send the police down there to encircle those areas, level them and kill anyone in the areas in order to “prevent crime”?

Why don’t we do that? What is wrong with that system? Wouldn’t it get some criminals and “prevent” some crime? Sure it would. We know it is happening there. What if there is a super influential guy down there actively recruiting people to go kill and rob people in the nice neighborhoods? Would that justify encircling the area and bombing it?

Of course not. Nothing does because it comes at the cost of killing all sorts of people who have nothing to do with it at all. They are completely innocent. And the “criminals” haven’t even been shown to in fact be criminals. They are still only “suspects”.

I am all in favor of the government agents charged with protecing the citizens be issued the latest in self defense.

Here’s a gun I designed for the government agents to start carrying.

You can’t have the state sending police down to neighborhoods killing people. Not even to prevent crime. Sure crime sucks. Sure we want to try and prevent it or catch criminals, but doing THAT kind of stuff is absurd and outrageous.

It is a worse criminal act than what you’re even allegedly trying to stop. That kind of system can NEVER be supported, and it can NEVER be defended.

Now I want to show you that this exact type of conduct is going on ALL the time. Everyday. And people demand MORE of it.

Just replace the word “criminal” with the word “terrorist” and move the action overseas and replace “police” with “military”, and there is NO DIFFERENCE. What I described IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR WAR ON TERROR IS. Go back and read it and replace them.  I had to sneak it in because there is so much brainwashing surrounding the whole topic. Most people just can’t be rational and objective.  But go do it. You will see.  IT IS BEHAVIOR YOU WOULD NEVER SUPPORT IN THIS COUNTRY, but you are perfectly content and feel JUSTIFIED in supporting when the label terrorist is applied and the supposed “threat” is to your “freedom”.

Remember, you are either with us or against us.  Really? that's the ONLY choice?

Classic false paradigm our rulers love to use.

But there really is no way to make any credible argument that “terrorists” pose any legitimate threat to this country that is any different than any other kind of criminal. Could they blow something up? Sure. Kill people, sure. But so could any CRIMINAL who is here right now for any reason.  But on the same note, people who ARE NOT here, can’t do that.

Are “terrorists” living in Iraq or Afghanistan going to take over our “government”? Absurd. Are they going to take over some town? Ridiculous. Are they going to impose the dreaded “sharia law on us” through force? Laughable. They don’t pose a tangible legitimate threat to us that is any different than any other kind of CRIMINAL we just talked about who didn’t even LIVE HERE,  How do they “threaten your freedom”?  They don’t.  It is preposterous.  They are 10K miles away living in the virtual stoneage.  It is just a slogan to trick people into imagining the “threat” is something fundamental and serious, when it is not.

Further, the “threats” are nothing but government claims that people are supposedly thinking about trying to maybe do something criminal.  Nothing more.  They are allegedly plotting to “kill you”, lol, Of course they are thousands of miles away and have no real ability to do anything from there.  It is not any different from some red neck railing about the “mahslems” and wanting to kill’em.  How will he go and do it? It is absurd. He is not about to engage in “war”. Are the people in Afghanistan justified in coming here and blowing up HIS house for saying that?  How about blowing up his NEIGHBORS house? Or maybe his whole TOWN?  Of course not.  But, there is no difference. 

The "black widow" surrenders after a ruthless bombing campaign.  Another great victory for freedom.

The “black widow” surrenders after a ruthless bombing campaign of her town. Another great victory for freedom.

How many 100’s of thousands have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and all over the rest of the world to supposedly “prevent terror” and “protect our freedom”?  For all practical purposes, NONE of those people could ever even ARGUABLY be responsible for ANY terror act, and none of them could in anyway “threaten” our freedom. Do you see that? It is hardly “terror” to attack a military force that is occupying your country?  That isn’t terror, that is freedom fighting, it is self defense.  Leave and they won’t be able to attack you. Do you see this?

But Legalman, they live in a “state” that “sponsored terrorism”. So? That STILL doesn’t justify going and killing ANYONE you happen to choose to kill in the state. Do you support Obama? How about Bush? Well would Russia be justified in blowing you up if they disagreed with one of those presidents policies? Of course not. You have nothing to do with it. You don’t even support it. Do you see the double standard?

And regardless of whether there ever was any possible basis to go over there and start blowing things up and killing people, which I don’t believe there was, our response has been outrageously OUT OF PROPORTION. NO way to justify the numbers of people we have killed and maimed all over the world, “in response”.

I feel safer and freer already.

I feel safer and freer already.

Would you support a law that says that the penalty for murder shall be that everyone in the town he lived in was killed?  How bout just the neighborhood?  How about just all of his family? Of course not. It is crazy. How about that we bomb the city he lived in back to the stoneage?  But that is what “the people” in this country support OVERSEAS, when the government calls the other people “terrorists” and the action a “war on terror”. Entire towns wiped out. Women, children, old people. And what is the “proof” we have for any guilt at all for ANY of them? Nothing but what the government tells us. Completely uncheckable. Do you see?

Do you see that the government has put this concept in your mind that we are somehow “justified” in killing innocent people by the thousands to supposedly prevent certain OTHER people from supposedly plotting to supposedly try and commit certain acts. Why is it justified? How is it any different than all the examples I gave you about criminals? It isn’t.

What actual threat do the acts of these individuals pose that is any different than any other criminal? None. This is not a war. Wars are fought against another military in uniform on a battlefield. This is criminal conduct AT BEST. Our “freedom” is in NO in actual danger as a result of anything these people are supposedly plotting to do.  ZERO.  Getting killed by a terrorist is nothing but a boogieman the government trumps up.  Here are the facts.

–You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

— You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

— You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

How many have to die overseas before we end the terror of suffocating in bed?

How many more should we kill to end the terror of suffocating in bed?

You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

— You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

Do you SEE what the REAL threat of “terrorism” is?  Nothing.   And yet, people are on board with us flying drones over neighborhoods 10k miles away in places with no electricity or running water to blow houses up with weddings going on in order to “kill terrorists”. The dead innocents are just “collateral damage”. And what is the justification?  Nothing except whatever the government has made up. No way to know if any of it is true.

Do you have anything against some guy in Iraq or Afghanistan? I seriously doubt it. Do they against you? I seriously doubt it.  Unless you have already KILLED HIS FAMILY. Yet we have killed how many of them under the guise of freedom?

Here are some terror recruits "training" on the latest terror equipment, according to government sources.

Here are some young terrorist recruits “training” on the latest terror equipment, according to unnamed government sources.  They were effectively eliminated with a 500 pound bomb.

A truly good and free people don’t fly around killing other people thousands of miles away based upon uncheckable allegations of “plotting” made by government officials who have proved again and again that they LIE and who “remain nameless” based on documents that are classified etc. It is no different than the fake stories about Iraqi’s “murdering babies in incubators”.  Remember that whopper of a lie used to gin up anger for the first “gulf war”?  This is what the government does.  It lies.  They count on people forgetting their endless lies.

Flying drones and using gunships and bombing people is not right. It is not justified. It is not civilized. This is not humane. This is murder. It is not even arguably “patriotic” because our country and our “freedom” is in no way threatened anymore than it is from any other criminal who lived thousands of miles away.   And if you think it is, then tell me how it actually is. Because I don’t see that.

I hope you can now see that the war on terror and all of the police state being created and imposed is not being done to protect you or me. That is all brainwashing. A totally unsupportable concept that doesn’t hold up to the slightest REAL scrutiny. They drape it in “patriotism” and freedom and heroes, to con the people.  It is none of those things.  It is a murderous monstrosity created to keep and grow the power of the State and nothing more.

Don't support murder in any country or FOR any country.

Don’t give your humanity away for a slogan.

Don’t support overseas what you would not support here at home. Be a thoughtful MORAL person first, not a mindless robot manipulated by ideas of being a  “patriot” who supports killing other people to maintain the power structure for those who benefit from it just because Hollywood shows faked up movies about “heroes” fighting for “freedom” and “getting the girl”. 

Think for YOURSELF.  Be a better person. How do you explain supporting killing people who have nothing against you, have never done anything to you and are thousands of miles away from you?  Think about it.

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Be well and wake someone to the truth.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

7 thoughts on “How much force should be used to “prevent” crime?

  1. GeorgiaCracker

    Caught in the act as in the shootings at Ft. Hood. What would happen if the people just said no we won’t go to war?

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      We’ll there was a lot of weird stuff going on at fort hood so I don’t know about that example. But clearly if someone is shooting at the public he can be gunned down by the public. As to war, of course that would solve it. Is that about to happen when the schools and media push patriotic nonsense and protecting freedom all the time? Of course not. The people need to be re-educated to the truth.

  2. PTM

    Spot on as usual Legalman. How do the Waco murders differ from those of Auschwitz? Yet no one was punished for Waco. Does not bear scrutiny. Waco should never happen again.

  3. GeorgiaCracker

    Maybe the leaders who want to fight should go and personally fight each other. That would cut down on war if they had to go themselves and could not send others to fight their battles.
    As for people actually caught in the act of committing a crime like murder or rape or armed robbery, or assault, to me they are not suspects and should immediately forfeit their lives or all their possessions and freedom. Swift and certain consequences will have a very salutary effect on people who are thinking about committing a crime. The long drawn out proceedings of our system today tend to separate the criminal act from the consequences.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      We know the politicos will never do the fighting. The key is to see that the “enemies” they create are just a concoction. The people in those places are not “OUR” enemies. They are just a way to justify violence so the state can seize resources and control people. Don’t fall for it. Explain it to others. I don’t know what it would mean to “catch someone” in the act. That is pretty rare. But I am not in favor of giving up rights to the state or assets. I just don’t ever agree with increasing the state’s power and authority. It always turns out wrong. That has to always be minimized.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *