Justice for Kelly Thomas

Many people were surprised when some of the officers involved in the beating death of Kelly Thomas were actually put on trial. It was a departure from the normal procedure of the pretense of an internal investigation that the public cannot find out anything about. The trial is public. Yes, it was only three of the six officers, but still it was far more than people were expecting.

Yet the surprise turned into cynicism when Officer Manuel Ramos, Corporal Jay Cicinelli, and Officer Joseph Wolfe were found not guilty. It seems that even going to an official court trial is not enough when an officer is a criminal. Protests erupted as a result of the verdicts. Protests took place at the police station and at the site of the beating. Police responded by ordering the dispersal of the protestors after some of the people at the protest claiming to be protestors turned violent.

These protests are well intentioned, but unfortunately are unlikely to achieve any practical result. They are demanding that the criminal officers be placed in prison, which is very unlikely without violating double jeopardy or violating habeas corpus. This does not mean that protests cannot achieve a positive result. These protests need to be directed in a new direction, though to achieve that result.

When a dangerous sex offender is released from prison, the community that receives the criminal often erupts with protest at the site of the offender’s residence. Flyers are printed up and distributed all over the surrounding neighborhood announcing that a sex offender is moving in. These flyers include the name, address, and picture of the offender so that the offender can be easily identified.

If protests were to take place at the homes of the officers, then and only then would the criminal officers actually feel some pressure for the crimes they committed. These protests would alert neighborhoods that they are living next to dangerous and violent criminals. And the officers would know that their neighbors know they are violent and dangerous. Flyers posted on street lamps, a common practice, will lead to neighborhood shunning.

This leads to neighborhood shunning, especially if these flyers made it to the stores the officers shop at. Neighborhood shunning is the desired goal since there won’t be any official punishment. Officer Ramos feels so entitled that he’s actually trying to get his old job back. Protests in front of his house, flyers in his neighborhood and at his favorite stores, children signing rhymes about how there is a bad person living at his house, all of those will put pressure on him to realize that no matter how innocent he thinks he is others do not think a badge absolves bad behavior.

No Official Accountability

Troy Davis has been executed for killing a police officer. There appear to be a large number of people convinced of his innocence, but the courts did not stop the execution. Some even claim that they have a confession by the actual murderer.

Assuming those protesting this execution are correct, then what does that mean? It means that the prosecutors, police, and a few other officials are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But what does that mean? Tragically, that means nothing.

First, the state holds a monopoly on criminal prosecutions. It is impossible to hold anybody in the law enforcement apparatus responsible unless they agree to do so. In the case of Kelly Thomas of Fullerton, CA, the worry of many was that the District Attorney would decline to prosecute entirely. That particular case had the population so enraged that it was impossible to bury without damage to the government structure, so two of the six police were charged. That case was very much an exception. In other cases where a criminal member of the law enforcement apparatus was held accountable, Mike Nifong got a single day in jail because neither the prosecutor nor the judge could believe that a prosecutor was being held accountable.

Second, assuming there was sufficient evidence to prove that an innocent was executed there is no guarantee that in a civil court these people could be held accountable. The law enforcement apparatus have granted themselves immunity for their actions. It takes a significant effort to prove that those responsible were acting outside what is legally allowable for them, and prosecuting someone who they have reason to believe is guilty at the time and then later ignoring the case when contradicting evidence comes to light is considered allowable. Refusing to reconsider a case is not forbidden.

If Troy Davis is innocent, as many claim, that means that there are several murderers in Georgia, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges, and it also means they have gotten away with it. Meanwhile in Fullerton there are four police officers who are accomplices to murder who are getting away with it. Both cases emphasize the need to reform the whole of law enforcement by stripping prosecutors of their monopoly on criminal prosecutions and severely diminishing the nearly all-encompassing protections of official immunity. Essentially there is no accountability anymore, and that is the indicator of a police state.

Judicial Reform in Defense

Since we have a government court system, one thing to do until liberty is achieved is try to make it function in a way that promotes actual justice. There are many ways in which the court system could be improved, some of them simple and some of them radical. One proposal is to hold judges accountable. Another would be allowing private citizens to file criminal charges. But there is one change that can be implemented right now, without any structural changes to the system. All it would require is a willingness to do the right thing. The part to change is the Public Defender's Office.

Currently, the Public Defender only defends the truly indigent. If someone cannot afford an attorney without going deeply into debt, but has an income above poverty, that person does not qualify for a public defender. Unlike civil suits where loser pays, a malicious prosecutor can financially break someone simply by filing spurious charges against them. The only reason that the Duke Rape Case turned out as well as it did was because the accused students came from wealthy families who were able to gather the resources to fight the charges.

The role of the Public Defender needs to be greatly expanded. Anyone accused of any crime should be entitled to representation by a Public Defender. A person still would have the right to hire additional representation, and would have the right to refuse a Public Defender, but the offer must be made. The problem with that is that the Public Defender’s office is already overwhelmed. Even with only defending the poor they have more cases than they can actually handle, and cannot devote enough time to mount a real defense of those they already represent.

The office itself should therefore be expanded. The Defender's office should have a budget equal to that of the District Attorney's office, and staffing levels of each office should vary by, at most, one person. Just as District Attorneys are promoted based on successful prosecutions, Public Defenders should be promoted based on successful defenses. Give full and equal resources and power to the two offices, to make one a real and actual check on the other.

If the average person is not equipped to face the full might of the government, unable to match the "unlimited" resources of the government, then the response should be to offer those same resources to the average person in defense as well as in prosecution.

The best part of this particular reform is it requires absolutely no structural changes to the justice system. It would not require any fundamental changes; it would not require amending any constitutions and it would barely require any changes to the law. All it would really take is the will to include it in the budget.

Lemonade and Nullification

Recently yet another group of bureaucrats tried to shut down yet another lemonade stand by yet another child trying to raise pocket money. Predictably people thought this quite absurd, and the county backed down in this case with Oregon County Chairman Jeff Cogen issuing an apology for the incident.

This parallels an older case where some students spontaneously broke into song at the Lincoln Memorial, singing the national anthem and were told by the park police that it wasn’t allowed because it was a demonstration. Bystanders supported the students and joined in the song in spite of a rule being broke.

Although it can easily be argued that the park police and the health department bureaucrats were wrong to enforce the law the way it was written, the actions by the observers and onlookers was most curious. Most people do not know of or agree with the concept of nullification, and yet in both cases they were advocating it.

Libertarians have long advocated jury nullification and judicial nullification. It is not as often discussed, although it is agreed with when police nullification is brought up as well. But just as libertarians are the only ones to agree with the concept of jury nullification, they are also the only ones to agree with the concept of police nullification.

Many people are unjustifiably afraid of nullification, except for judicial nullification. Perhaps the reason that they are not afraid of judicial nullification is because judges are in a special position of authority, all the credentials that the average person lacks. When a police officer, or worse a jury member, nullifies a law that puts decision making power several layers downward and out of the hands of the elite.

Of course that is not the argument made. People argue against nullification on the grounds that they do not want juries and police simply making up laws, completely ignoring that nullifying a law is the exact opposite of making up a law. They also argue that the principle of nullification would enable corrupt police to fail to enforce the law on their friends, forgetting that that already happens.

Those who support not enforcing the law on the child selling lemonade are advocating nullification, whether they know it or not. Those who oppose nullification should support full enforcement of the law on children selling lemonade.

What is a "good cop"?

There are no good police officers in the Portland Police Department of Portland, Oregon. Every single one of them is a "bad cop." Anyone who would pepper spray an eleven month old baby, or even do nothing when an eleven month old baby is pepper sprayed, is not only a bad cop but is no longer even remotely human.

Too many people have too relaxed a definition of "good cop". To them, a good cop is one who is not engaging in criminal activity. However, since a police officer's job is to apprehend those who are engaging in criminal activity, any officer who does not do that is by definition a bad cop. That includes failure to arrest fellow officers when fellow officers break the law.

There are no good cops in New York City Police Department. The officer who assaulted the critical mass cyclist was clearly a bad cop, but there were several other officers who stood around doing nothing when that happened. They did not arrest their fellow officer. Instead they initially corroborated his story, until a YouTube video gave lie to their version of events.

Given how increasingly criminal the police are acting, it is important to remember that just because a police officer does not personally break the law, it does not mean that officer is good. By failing to act they give consent to the actions of their fellow officers. For anyone short of an officer of the law, simply not breaking the law may be considered a valid definition, but police officers must be held to a higher standard due to the nature of their voluntarily chosen occupation.

There are no good cops in The Utah Highway Patrol. Instead they cleared the officer of all wrong-doing for using pain compliance and electroshock torture for someone who was not posing any sort of threat, but not giving abject obsequience to the officer either. If there was a single good cop in the whole organization, then Trooper Gardner would have been arrested for assault.

When the police start arresting the many bad apples within their own ranks, then it can be said there are good cops. Until that time their numbers are distressingly few.


Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.

The need for police to police each other

Those who distrust government often extend that distrust to the police themselves. That leads to the criticism that police have a very difficult job and do not need the opprobrium that is often heaped on them by those who dislike their enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Attention should only be paid to those who are actually bad, and good police should not be judged by the bad seeds in their company.

The law enforcement structure, consisting of both the police and the district attorneys, may very well be full of well meaning people. That cannot be denied. While it is obvious some of those in the structure entered it because of a desire for power over others, others entered it out of a genuine desire to serve or protect the public.

Unfortunately they do not police themselves enough. Every police officer who does not arrest a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so. Every district attorney who does not file charges against a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so.

That’s what it comes down to. People talk about “the thin blue line”, a phrase meant to indicate that police will protect other police when one of them is accused. Police will not take action against other police unless public outcry is so great (as in the case of the BART subway shooting) that they cannot afford to do otherwise.

Although solutions have been proposed, until and unless they are acted upon the only way the law enforcement structure can earn the respect that was once their due is to break the blue wall of silence.

Until that happens the bad opinion people have of the police in general, as a result of the "bad seeds", is entirely justified.

The Libertarian Rubicon

Over on Rad Geek People’s Daily the Rad Geek recently made some interesting comments. These comments were regarding the death of FBI Narcotics Agent Sam Hicks while executing a no-knock raid.

Seeing as Sam Hicks was a professional thug who was shot in the course of violently enforcing a tyrannical law on an innocent man — and endangering that man's whole family in the process — I'm glad he got himself shot while he was doing it. That was a righteous kill. If only more of his fellow gangsters had reason to fear that they might get shot whenever they attempted these storm-trooper raids on innocent families to enforce unjust laws. And I don't even care whether FBI Special Agent Sam Hicks could have saved his own skin by enforcing that tyrannical law through other, less confrontational means.

He goes further.

But, speaking only for myself, as a libertarian, I think that drug dealers' lives are worth far more than the lives of FBI agents, because at least some drug dealers make their living nonviolently, by peddling a valued product to willing customers. Whereas FBI agents, and especially FBI agents on drug task forces, make their livings by imprisoning people who have done nothing to deserve it, in the name of "protecting" people who never asked for it and often don’t want that kind of "protection," and taking home a salary that was extracted from their "protected" victims at the point of a gun.

This is a courageous stand to take. Libertarians are accustomed to disagreeing with police, even to the point of describing them as tyrants or thugs. But libertarians often stop short of cheering for the death of police officers, no matter how well deserving.

While libertarians generally embrace a revolutionary spirit and talk about the possibility of some day needing to rebel and fight back against government oppressors, the tendency is to couch such language in the future sense and always theoretically. Some of the more disgruntled libertarians like to say "is it time to shoot the bastards yet?"

Another step taken by the Rad Geek is to say that the life of a drug dealer is worth more than that of a police officer. People are trained since childhood to respect police as heroes doing an important and difficult job. While libertarians in general have a dissenting view, they often stop short of actively demeaning officers or glorifying those who defend their homes as heroes, especially when the person the so-called criminal was defending from was a police officer.

In other cases where a person shot a police officer who was presumed to be a home invader, the debate sometimes devolves to whether or not burglary is a death sentence offense. Since it isn't in a court, there is no reason for a person to shoot a burglar, other than the obvious one of the burglar being a threat. Other times the debate devolves into whether or not it is credible that the person didn't know the intruder was a police officer. Plus, given the self-defense angle of those who shoot invading burglars (and police officers) there will be those who insist that the lives of criminals are of equal value to others and therefore should never be taken. That argument is used to make libertarians appear callous for thinking that those who violate the rights of others have forfeited those rights themselves, even though it is true. What makes a police officer different is only a mistaken identity in those arguments.

While cheering is short of actually advocating armed resistance, it is a step closer. The first ones to take it will, of course, be jeered and treated as just a step above criminals themselves even among libertarians. But if the government is oppressive enough it is a necessary step and the first ones to take it will eventually be joined with other voices cheering when a home invader with a badge is treated like any other home invader. And daring to say that the police officer is not a valuable member of society, and that a drug dealer is, is another important step. This goes a step beyond simply comparing police to the criminals they "protect" us from.

This is a Rubicon that each libertarian needs to cross individually, but it is an important one. It's time to stop showing criminals respect simply because they have badges. It's time that people start saying that these thugs get what they deserve when they act like criminals.


Please give to the Salvation Army. They are a charity with a good record on how much of each donation goes to the intended recipient, and this year due to the depression their donations have fallen significantly. That’s unfortunate because in depressions is when charities like this are needed most. Yes, they are a religious based charity, and while I don’t agree with their religious beliefs they do good work. If you’re going to give to a non-political charity, please consider the Salvation Army.

Proper Standing

Accountability really is the biggest problem with any government. Some may say that in a despotic government other problems are bigger, but it is the lack of accountability that enables a government to grow to the levels necessary to become abusive.

The original design of the federal system of the United States had several checks put in place to assist in keeping the government accountable. In theory the branches of the government compete with each other, and the individual states jealously guard their power. In practice the various levels of government have learned game theory and have solved the prisoner’s dilemma and all branches play cooperate more often than they play defect.

In The police state cannot happen without the police the tendency of the police to fail to adequately police themselves was noted. In A Proposed Solution it was suggested that those outside the government be given authority to file criminal charges against government officials.

If breaking the civil-criminal wall were implemented, there are still several defenses the state has.

One major problem with this is the problem of standing. One can only file a lawsuit in any given case if one has been an injured party. An outside observer, witnessing a crime, cannot file charges against the criminal. The victim, directly involved in the crime, can file civil charges against the criminal. The government is the only third party actor with standing to file any charges. The government, not directly involved in the crime, can file criminal charges against the criminal.

Another problem is the Nuremberg Defense. While that defense is not allowed by agents of a conquered government in courts of the conquering government, it has been shown to be effective when the court trying the case is of the same government as the defendant.

But the standing issue really is not only a big hurdle, it’s a big opportunity if the law can be adjusted to allow for it. In addition to holding police accountable, an adjustment to the principles of standing can hold the entire government accountable. Currently the only way an individual can challenge the constitutionality of any given law that individual must be on trial for breaking said law or as a victim of said law.

This is the reason why the ACLU has had such a hard time suing over wiretapping performed by the U.S. Government in the name of the “War On Terror.” The ACLU needs to find an actual victim to represent, someone who was actually spied upon unconstitutionally or illegally. That person would have standing and therefore the ACLU could represent them. The problem is the U.S. Government won’t intentionally release the names of who they have been secretly spying on, and therefore the ACLU cannot act. Fortunately for the ACLU they were saved by government incompetence and a partial list of names was released and therefore there were identifiable victims.

If one is not accused of breaking the law in question, or if one is not a victim of the law in question, one does not have standing to question the validity of the law. That needs to be remedied, and would be another check on the power of the government. Given the bromide that “we are the government” then theoretically everyone should be considered to have standing to challenge any law

If anyone could, at any time, file a case (at their own expense) to challenge the validity of the law it would be a legal nightmare. Therefore there will need to be guidelines and restrictions put in place to winnow out the more spurious cases. The guidelines already in place would serve as a good starting point, although they are more restrictive than they need to be. The only modification to the guidelines advocated is to remove the need for proper standing with regards to challenging legislation. This would also have the advantage of cutting through the government solution to the prisoners dilemma.

A proposed solution

There are many proposed ideas on ways to repair the government. The problem with all of these ideas is that none of them have a prayer of passing.

As more and more stories about police abuse appear in the media, as police get ever more abusive, the constant theme going through each of these stories is the severity of the punishment the offending police receive: they really aren't punished. Many of them are suspended with pay. Most of the rest are suspended without pay. A few are actually fired. How many spend time in jail?

The same goes for misbehaving prosecutors, the other half of the offensive power of government, as the police lack the power to convict (in theory, as when pain compliance via taser is administered it is clearly conviction and punishment). When Michael Nifong so severely raped the North Carolina Justice System that it was inescapable that he be disciplined, he spent one whole day in jail.

Obviously there is a major disconnect with the officials of the government policing itself. The police and the prosecutors not only fail to act against offenders within their own ranks and each others ranks, they also fail to act against offenders in other departments of the government.

In England and Australia there is a law that, while seldom used, would be useful to remedy the situation in the United States. The people have the authority to file criminal charges. Given how much more lawsuit happy the people of the United States are, this could easily get out of hand so as an introductory step the people of the United States would better be given the authority to fire criminal charges against government officials.

There would have to be a few conditions on this os as to keep this from getting out of hand. First, the person filing the charge must pay for the initial filing - a successful conviction will warrant reimbursement from the government. Second, prosecutors are not able to take over the prosecution without agreement from the filing party. This will prevent the prosecutor from taking over simply to move that the charges be dropped with prejudice. Third, government attorneys other than those already designated as public defenders may not act as the defense for accused government agents, and only if the government agent passes the means test to qualify for free public defense - which they will not.

No government attorney should be allowed to defend the accused. That would be a conflict of interest.

Given that when a prosecutor accuses a person, if the person successfully defends himself the government does not reimburse the defense, so when a person accuses a government agent the agent should expect no reimbursement from either the government or the filing party. This is quite unlike the loser-pays system of civil suits, and much more like the government's idea of justice ... only applied to the government.

Too bad it has no chance of passing.