You're Not A Member of My Gang... How Dare You!
I originally saw this one The Blaze dot com.
Watch the video.
Never mind, the video link. Youtube has killed it. Go to The Blaze dot com at the link above and watch the video.
The law in Texas requires a Handgun Carry License holder to inform an officer if he is carrying at the beginning of the interaction. The driver did that.
The cop, seeing a peaceable citizen demonstrate his compliance, took it to mean his life was in danger. He called for back up. When back up arrived one of the officers approached with weapon drawn. They asked nicely for the driver to exit the car, which he did, then they twisted his arm and arrested him for a very minor traffic infraction.
So let us recap, The "Perp", after going through mandatory training, submitting finger prints and a mug shot, submitting to a background check, having his application notarized, and paid some of his hard earned money to the State of Texas, begged for and received (benevolent endowment) a permission slip to do something he has a natural right to to, which is to carry on or about his person short range defensive weaponry. Then after he has complied with the law which grants him permission to exercise his natural right, the exercise of which has been illegal in Texas since Reconstruction, he has a minor interaction with local Policemen. In accordance with Texas Law, he informs the Policemen his is carrying his sidearm.
The Policemen then treat his as though they believe he is a threat to their safety and arrest him for... wait for it... failure to use a turn signal.
Lets cut to the chase here. The Rosenberg Police, as demonstrated by the two in this video, have the attitude that anyone who is not a member of their gang, is a threat to themselves. If someone who is not a member of their gang is carrying a weapon, he should be arrested, even if he would be released without being charged later, if for nothing else, his inconvenience.
These policemen will say they do not know what they face in a traffic stop. The person stopped could very well try to kill them. They must be hyper vigilant! Stomp on 'em until you know for sure!
I ask you, since their attitude is, "every one I meet is going to try to kill me and I should treat everyone I meet as such". Shouldn't I think when I see a Policeman, that:
1. He is a member of a gang which has official State sanction.
2. He is empowered to kill me if he experiences a certain emotions.
3. No matter how egregious his fuck-up, his fellow gang members, as well as his professional organizations will cover for him. They will hide or destroy exculpatory evidence. They will make false statements in court and in writing. They will manufacture or plant evidence when it suits them to do so.
4. The State presumes everything he did to be in accordance with law and policy.
I am presumed guilty. The news media will get their talking points directly from the police report. They will duly report as instructed.
5. I don't know what kind of day he has had. He might still be enraged from his previous field contact. He might have had a spat with his wife before his shift. He might be 'roid raging.
6. When he approaches me, he could kill me and get away with it and might be looking for an excuse to do just that. I should be hyper-vigilant. I should have my hand on my sidearm and take up a defensive posture. I should require him to prove his intentions before anything else happens. When I see a "furtive movement" I should presume he is making a play for his weapon and attempting to kill me. I should act, logically, in defense of my own life.
Now, does that sound preposterous? Why? Because the Policeman in question is a State employee and the State is Daddy and Daddy can't be wrong?
Cops all over the country have the point of view that they are at war with you. They believe themselves to be patrolling in enemy occupied territory.
The vast majority are good guys who mean well? Then why don't they police their own to such an extent that there are no bad cops? Vast majority, huh? Bullshit.