To Shoot A Cop

From a reader, via Tucson Backpage:

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 Chairman 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.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.

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. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

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 “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. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?”

The correct answer is:

– When evil is “legal,” become a criminal.

– When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.”

– When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

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. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

• Location: Tucson

• Post ID: 27944430 tucson

Sad Pandas created by the above can go here (h/t Curtis) for some healing ego massage.


For the rest of us?

Ehr kumt.

shiny badges large

39 responses to “To Shoot A Cop

  1. “In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”

  2. MtnTopPatriot

    A question many ask is what does it take to wake people up to the tyranny breathing down their necks?
    Ask everyone you know to read and understand the words contained within this brutally honest assessment of the truth of the violent nature and monopoly of force those in control of our government employ to force people to their will.

    Then put forth the truth if ours was a legitimate government with lawful people representing our will and defending our interests, the intent of those running it, they and it has no need or use of force against the people.

    Just cause of resistance to tyranny begins where legitimate government ends.

  3. I don’t want to appear arrogant, or that I’m second guessing Tuscon’s perspective or their accurate view of current LEO, but I’ll suggest a different wording for the first sentence;

    “In a practical world, cops would do nothing except clean up the mess which is a result of Citizens protecting themselves from thieves and attackers of any definition, including cops, in which case shooting a cop would be justified, and no penalties would be levied against the Citizen.”

    Resist, and Stay Safe.

  4. tpearson30

    Keep in mind that all those people rounded up in various nations and sent to the concentration camps were not all rounded up by German soldiers but often by the local/national police of that country and loaded onto trains. The Germans did not have enough manpower to do it all themselves. Most of the victums being law-abiding people could not imagine that happening to them by their own government, people and neighbors. Hence no resistance.

    A jewish friend of mine once said “If the Jewish People are God’s Chosen People, where the hell was he when his chosen people and many others needed him during 1935-45?

    • Cassandra (of Troy)


      “A jewish friend……1935-45?”

      Perhaps your jewish friend has, like many of his kindred, ‘forgotten’ the circumstances leading to the Hebrews becoming enslaved in Egypt & if that’s the case a gentle reminder might be what’s needed to re-energise the lightbulb of wisdom. A comparative examination of pre-1935 Jewish behavior & the pre-Egyptian slavery period may also be assistive as well as a cost/benefit analysis of their traditional ‘stiff-necked’ attitude which historically results in repeated chastisement from God.

      I mean, damn, after Hitler then Stalin one would think they’d take the hint & get their ordure ordered properly.

      Cassandra (of Troy)

      • Yes. Joseph, the minister of Pharaoh, had levied a heavy grain tax against the seven years of famine to come. Then once the famine hit, instead of giving people their grain, he made them buy it. Once they had nothing left, they still were not fed but had to sell themselves into slavery to survive. Then Joe, mighty pleased with himself, invited his relations to come on down and join in the looting of Egypt. Unfortunately for Joe and Co, his mentor died and another Pharaoh, “who knew not Joseph” arose and gave the Hebrews some of their own medicine.

        They are not the Chosen people anymore. Who is? We are.

        • Cassandra (of Troy)


          “They are not the Chosen people anymore. Who is? We are.”

          What small portion of Divine Favor we may have once enjoyed has long ago been departed w/ our eager assistance & so we, like the Hebrews of old & their Israeli successors, now enter the time of chastisement w/ its attendent hypocritically sanctimonious wailing & gnashing of teeth. And in accord w/ my penchant for ‘blasphemous’ speculation, I often wonder what would’ve happened if those involved in the creation of this Blessed country who allegedly were SO well versed in matters historical, philosophical, political, & religious had looked at the Bible w/ a more analytical view & noticed how frequently the Hebrews & later the Jews were punished by God for their misbehavior, then pondered on the wisdom of automatically including such a repetitiously stupid people into the ranks of what post-Revolution would be known as Americans.

          Mayhap it would’ve made a difference if The Chosen of God(R) had been told up front that their wayward behavior would NOT be tolerated & as such they’d have to prove themselves worthy of being allowed to remain here. Now don’t mistake this as being an ‘in all things be thou as we are & do thou as we do w/o hesitation’ edict because it manifestly isn’t, it’s instead a recognition of the Jewish trait for arrogant endo/exo-destructiveness & a pro-active prohibition against their embroiling us in the catastrophic consequences arising from their personal pathologies. If the Judaics of that time were anything like those currently, they doubtless would’ve had a shirt rending, dire imprecation filled, grand mal hissy calculated to put the Fear O’ Gawd back into the impudent goyim who DARE dictate how Jews will conduct themselves in a land that isn’t theirs. You can just hear the outrage,: “The unmitigated CHUTZPAH of these neo-Canaanites, THEY should THANK us for deigning to grace THEM w/ our Biblically documented Sanctified Presence, OY VEY!”.

          Cassandra (of Troy)

    • Agreed. When the Germans were driving into Estonia and Latvia in WWII, they found that the local populations were dealing with their “jewish Problem” on their own. Evidently, the Jews were the most dedicated in oppressing Christian populations and very efficient bureaucrats. Orders sent to Berlin asked “What should we do about this?”. The reply was always, “Let the locals deal with it in their own way.”

  5. Reblogged this on disturbeddeputy and commented:
    I cannot advise violence against any person outside of defending against a direct threat. But when life and limb is directly threatened, you need to do what you have to do without thought of age, gender, uniform, or anything else. Do it swiftly and decisively.

    • Jimmy The Saint

      “But when life and limb is directly threatened, you need to do what you have to do without thought of age, gender, uniform, or anything else. Do it swiftly and decisively. ”

      And, in the context of this article, add “Be ready to accept the inevitable consequences.” Once you act, they will come at you with every thing they’ve got. If they can kill your family along with you, so much the better.

      Eventually, if enough resist, they’ll run out of people to come after resistors. But that will take quite a while. The first thousands will, in all likelihood, meet nasty ends.

      • If they bring you war, there is only one reasonable response.

        • Cassandra (of Troy)


          Put another way, the M.G.R./Modified Golden Rule,:

          As you do, I shall too!

          Easily understood, eminently equitable, readily usable.

          Cassandra (of Troy)

  6. Reblogged this on Cold Dead Hands Days and commented:
    I agree wholeheartedly.

  7. ChuckNTexas

    Cops everywhere have become the Threat. To start with, I believe the citizens of any village, town or city should have the right and the privilage to tase a cop on a weekly basis. Maybe not the same cop each week by the same citizen, come-on, it could be all done by a drawing. But every cop on the “force” needs to be tased once every month or so, just he remembers what it feels like when the a$$hole tases some 90 year old woman or a kid.
    In small towns with maybe only a couple of cops (where is that? We have six cops in our 2000 pop. town, WTF???) maybe the rule could be stretched some, but in a town like ours we should be able to tase a cop every week. It would take six weeks to get to all of them including the Chief.

  8. Over at Pig One:
    “Band of brothers.”
    “All for one and one for all.”
    “It is about Brotherhood, Honor, Respect, and Remembrance.”


    Fuck you. Just die.

  9. Mike Hartman Sr

    I’m a police officer, good bye

     “The sheep pray the wolves will never come, the sheepdogs live for that day”

    • How would you solve the out-of-control police violence problem?

      Or is there a problem in your view?

      And BTW, you do know that the sheepdogs work for the farmer, who raises the flock to be shorn, and then eventually to be eaten – you get that, right?

      • Domestic sheep aren’t admirable animals. But Bighorn Sheep are a whole nother animal. That’s what we have to do: grow long legs, thick coats, and those beautiful curved horns. Let the wolf come: he’s get thrown off the cliff.

    • Jim Klein

      “The sheep pray the wolves will never come, the sheepdogs live for that day”

      Thanks for the insight; the analogy rings true. You might find it noteworthy that both the sheep and the sheepdogs are lower animals controlled by thinking men. You can rest assured that’s how this plays out in the long run, if there is a long run.

    • Wait a second, did officer Hartman just suck-start his service revolver? Hot damn! That was easy.

      We ruined his day by not being copsucking sheep. Oh well… Only one way to console a widow… 😉

    • What if the sheep have guns and don’t want the sheepdog around?

      Another question: Does the sheepdog get to eat mutton, because he “protects” the sheep?

    • I’m not a sheep, and I don’t need nor want you to protect me.
      You’re pretty impressed with yourself, ain’cha?

    • I don’t need no stinking sheepdog.

    • I shot the neighbor’s sheepdog. It looked kinda like a Rottweiler, but what the hell. It came at me on my land, and I took care of business.

      Fuck you.

    • Cassandra (of Troy)

      Mike Hartman Sr./12May14@08:14,

      Given the indisputability of the following, your pose of a noble LEO who’s been grievously wounded by the petulant ingratitude of lesser creatures at best rings hollow.:

      Warren v. District of Columbia

      DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

      Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales

      The above cases are definitive & so are as well known to local/state/Federal LEOs & associated legal personnel as the Escobedo & Miranda decisions. Peddle your BS elsewhere, Mikey, it won’t work here.

      Cassandra (of Troy)

  10. Hey, Pete,

    How does one say “We’re coming!” in German?

    To Hell with they or he, whatever, are coming.

    WE ARE COMING! for you, thugs.

  11. We are not sheep. We don’t need herding. If it was up to us the criminal gene pool would almost be extinct by now. We ceded ‘law and order’ to the ‘professionals’ about a century ago. Look where that got us. Bundy story gave us a glimpse of a healthy future. Cops are second lowest on the food chain of the protection racket of the post-modern police state. Calling criminals Wolves and cops sheepdogs is an insult to fine animals.

    @CA your analogy should be clear even to the dimmest of the Janissaries, but I fear the ‘brotherhood’ will never look in the mirror.

  12. Just laws need only be policed — which is a pretty light task.

    Only unjust “laws” require enforcement.

    And now “‘Law’ Enforcement” comes into focus.


  13. These are NERD’s in uniform, their boss’s are NERD’s, those in elected office’s are NERD’s. The 100 million plus who vote for them are NERD’s. Probably not one in the bunch who could get on a college wrestling team. Is there enough none NERD’s left who can vote and remove these NERD’s from office, and fire the NERD’s in law enforcement who don’t have the skill sets or mindsets to be there. The same goes for our military. Outside the USA look at the leader of North Korea, a fucking NERD with an army of NERD’s keeping the hungry NERD/Sheep population in check. The non NERD’s in North Korea are the ones who are trying to escape. The problem in this country is that the non NERD’s allow the NERD’s to run them, tax the hell out of them, fuck with them at check points, tell them they can’t have a garden inside the city limits. The list goes on. The NERD’s don’t need to get shot, they need their asses kicked. The non NERD’s need to step up and start occupying the job’s and office’s held by the NERD’s. Anything else is just bull shit talk and posing. People need to decide what kind of city, county, state they want to live in, and who will hold the offices. Lose the federal and state welfare programs for the able bodied and the people who really work a job would be getting a real refund check, not a check from over paying their taxes. That alone would put H&R Block out of business.

  14. Just FYI:

    The Indiana legislature fixed that idiotic court ruling…Senate bill # 1 about 3 years ago.

    No longer a valid thing. We can now shoot the cop who attempts to enter our home without a warrant absent dire circumstances.

  15. Pingback: To Shoot a Cop | Knuckledraggin My Life AwayKnuckledraggin My Life Away

  16. Jeffery in Alabama

    I wondered about this incident even before I saw this post.
    Man backs into motorcycle knocking it over and attempts to drive away. Man whose back has been knocked over confronts hit and run driver. Maybe the hit and run perp pulls a pistol and says “get out of my face”. Possibly the Motorcycle man says, “i can play that game”. “I have a pistol too”. He then “dumps” four rounds the man who is driving away. This is all hypothetical, but the mechanics are not the way the local TV stations are portraying it.