Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 694, October 28, 2012

"Libertarianism must, for the foreseeable
future, be a strategy for conservatives"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

"Officer safety"
by Kent McManigal

Bookmark and Share

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I despise the bogus concept of "officer safety". What a completely disgusting justification for anything some corrupt cop (redundancy alert) wants to do to you.

Why would a reaver's safety be more important than mine or anyone else's? Why shouldn't I be able to disarm and cuff any cop I encounter as a safety precaution? You know, just until I ascertain that he is not a threat to me or to anyone else ("the public")? Who is actually more likely to shoot whom? Well, check out the statistics for yourself.

I don't shoot people whom I claim were driving "too fast", or whose tires I claim crossed a painted stripe, just because they don't wish to be stopped and robbed or kidnapped by me. Cops do. I don't shoot people who are trying to get away from me. Cops do. I don't break into people's houses because they are doing something I don't like, and then murder them if they resist. Cops do. I don't rob, kidnap, or murder people for growing some kind of plant. Cops do. So exactly who is endangered by whom?

I don't feel endangered by some guy with a holstered gun on his hip, unless he also wears a badge. Cops do. I don't even feel endangered by most people who have unholstered their gun—unless, once again, they hide behind a badge. Cops flip out over that. The reason I don't is that I am not a coward, I am not paranoid, and I don't go around escalating situations that I initiate. It's that simple.

If a LEO feels he needs to violate people for his own "safety", it indicates to me that he knows he is guilty of doing things that normal people know are wrong. A guilty conscience—probably combined with an instinctual knowledge that his victims would be ethically justified in killing him for his evil behavior—makes his own safety become his primary concern. It shows that he is a violator and a coward, and somewhere deep inside he probably knows it.

If a cop is concerned about his safety, he can do the same things others do for safety. Wear a seatbelt—or not; don't look down the barrel of your gun to see if it's loaded; don't initiate car chases; don't trespass; don't rob; don't be an aggressor; don't stick your tongue into light sockets; don't harass people who are minding their own business; and don't interfere with travelers. Distilled down: don't be an idiot or a prick and your safety factor increases exponentially.

But this is too hard for people whose brains are encumbered with the Enforcer Defect.

They want to be able to be a bad guy and still go home at the end of their shift—after doing the wrong thing for hours at your expense. Well, Officer, the rest of us have just as much right to go home at the end of your shift as you do. And unless we are stupid enough to seek you out, our lives are worth more than yours could ever be. We didn't start it. And we outrank you, since you are supposed to be our servant. You're a butler-gone-bad.

Your cowardice, paranoia, and your sense of entitlement is an indication that you can't be trusted with any amount of "authority". You need to go find an honest job and stop being a predator. Unfortunately most cops can't handle a real job—especially one that has real risks beyond the minuscule "risks" their preferred "career" entails. That's obvious since they keep being cops.

Well, Mr. Cop, your safety means as much to me as the safety of a rapist. I don't need your "help". You're fired. Now, go away.

First published at Mr. McManigal's blog

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


Big Head Press