Concerned Citizens Opposed To Police States
- J.A.I.L. News Journal
November 1, 2000
Listen to HotSeat4Judges daily on Internet Radio M-Th, 6-7 pm P.T.
Make your plans now to attend So. CA. JAIL's Nov. 11th (Veteran's Day) fundraiser. RSVP $20 (or $25 at the door) to Doug Johnson, (818) 895-1239, 8340 Columbus Ave., North Hills, CA. 91343. Event held 11 am., American Legion Hall, 7338 Canby Ave., Reseda, CA. Includes food and a J.A.I.L. T-shirt.Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States
Cops Against CCOPS
October 31, 2000
The Dark Secret Underlying CCOPS
Do you want to know why we founded CCOPS? It's not just a vague fear about something that "might happen someday." Not just an overdose of George Orwell's 1984.
The answer lies in this remarkable letter from Attorney Peter Mancus. Mr. Mancus had a conversation with a law officer not long ago, and wrote it all down afterward. He has shared the conversation with us.
You have to read what the officer said -- and then you'll understand. You'll see how the police state mentality has begun to infect even the otherwise solid, decent law officers. ....
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel.: (707) 829-9050
October 22, 2000
Founder, CCOPS [Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States]
Hartford, WI 53027
RE: A CONVERSATION WITH SEBASTOPOL, CA POLICE OFFICER ROBERT SMITH
I live in Sebastopol, California, which is approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific coast line.
Sebastopol is a bedroom community of approximately 8,000 people. ....What follows is true. The date was late 1999. The scene was a beautiful, sunny day, in a neighborhood at Dowd Drive, in Sebastopol, California.
I was walking my dog when I saw a man, in civilian clothes, walking his dog, coming toward me. When this man and I crossed each other's path, I started a conversation with this man. The following is a faithful, paraphrased, recreation of this conversation, not an exact quote.
In the dialogue that follows, PM stands for me, Peter Mancus, and RS stands for Robert Smith, who was the other man walking his dog. This Robert Smith is a white male; approximately 5'9"; approximately 145-150 pounds; approximately 50-55 years old. He is wiry; athletic, trim looking; he has a flat abdomen; medium brown hair; bushy mustache; a gaunt look; and tight facial skin with deep smile lines [diagonal lines along nose, above mouth.]
PM: Excuse me. May I please talk to you briefly?
PM: Are you a Sebastopol Police Officer?
PM: I thought so. I normally see you from the chest up, in blue uniform, behind the steering wheel of a patrol car.
RS: [No comment.]
PM: What's your name?
RS: Bob Smith.
PM: Have a question for you. How do you feel about gun control?
RS: I don't have any problem with most people having guns. It is a mistake to over rely on the police. We cannot be every where. You have a right to guns. You should get proper training. I own guns. I like to shoot. I can understand how others would like to keep their guns. I think some people in Sebastopol might be unsafe with guns, but it is their right. They make me nervous about how they handle their guns.
PM: Have another question for you. If civil authority gave you an order to go house to house to disarm law- abiding citizens who never misused their firearms, what would you do? And why?
RS: Don't worry about that. I do not think that will ever happen. I've been a cop for 25 years. I do not anticipate receiving that order before I retire. I do not believe our chief [recently retired Dwight Crandall] would ever give that order. I think the chief would be extremely reluctant to issue us that order. I just don't think he would do it. I am very confident that I will retire before I ever get that order.
PM: Thank you for sharing that with me, but please do not avoid the question. The question is [and I repeated it.] If you were given that order, what would you do? Assume that you were given that order, what would you do? [For several minutes Officer Smith gave me evasive, non-responsive answers, while I did my best to keep him focused on giving me a direct answer responsive to my specific question.]
RS: [Eventually] I would carry out the order.
RS: Because it is an order?
PM: Any other reasons?
RS: Yes. I've been a cop for 25 years. I have worked hard. I have put up with a lot--stress, danger, heartache, etc. I would not like doing it but I would do it [enforce the order].
PM: What if the home owner citizen [who is otherwise law-abiding] tells you something like this, "Officer. I respect your title. Thank you for your service. But I am not going to give you my guns. Society and the courts have gone off the deep end. They are wrong. I have rights. My rights limit your duty, regardless of what society says. I am going to stand up for those rights. I am not going to let you cross the threshold into my home to confiscate my guns. I have never misused my guns. I am not responsible for what criminals do with their guns. I am not a criminal. I wish you well. I harbor no animosity toward you. Please. Just leave in peace, without my guns. Stay on that side of my door, and you are a peace officer. Cross the threshold to my home to confiscate my guns, and you are a government goon. I will support and obey a peace officer. I will not support and I will not obey a government goon," what would you do then?
RS: I would not leave. I would enforce the order.
PM: What if the citizen then made it politely and tactfully clear to you that if you want the guns, you will have to use lethal force because he [or she] is willing to use lethal force to resist? What would you do then?
RS: In that case, the situation is no longer academic. I would not leave
without that citizen's guns. I would enforce the order.
PM: Even after the citizen warns you of the personal physical risk you take? Even after the citizen urges you to leave in peace?
RS: I have received an order. I am a cop. It is my job to enforce the law. This hypothetical citizen you've described is a gun nut. He is willing to
risk his life and his freedom for his damn guns. When it comes down to his guns and my retirement benefit, I am not going to give my department any excuse for terminating me, for keeping me from retiring and collecting my retirement benefit. I am not going to let my fellow officers down. I will carry my weight. I will do my job. If necessary, I will become a vicious bull dog to enforce that order. I want to collect my retirement. I want to keep my job. My wife and I are counting on me keeping my job. We need the money. I am not going to let my family or my department down.
PM: So, would you be willing to kill that otherwise law-abiding citizen to disarm him? To enforce your order?
PM: And, assuming you did that and that you survived that encounter, would you then go to the next house hold to enforce your order?
PM: And what if that citizen told you the same thing as the other one that you just killed? What would you do then?
RS: I would enforce my order.
PM: Including using lethal force to kill that citizen, too?
PM: And after you do that, would you then move on to the next house? And the next?
PM: Is that how you treat citizens who paid your salary via their taxes for 25 years? Would you really do this? Shift after shift until Sebastopol was a gun free zone?
RS: Hey! Do not get upset with me. I would just be doing my job. If anyone has a problem with me doing my job, they should obey my command to surrender their guns to me and then take it up with a judge. They have a legal duty to obey my order. If they threaten me with lethal force, I will take care of myself, which will be bad for whomever resisted my order.
PM: Have you ever heard of the "Nuremberg Principle"?
PM: Do you know what that principle is?
PM: Have you ever received any training about the "Nuremberg Principle"?
PM: So you would just continue going from house to house, shift after shift, day after day, enforcing that order, killing everyone who refused to surrender their guns?
RS: Do not get upset with me. I am just a small cog in a big piece of
machinery. If the citizens want to stay alive, they simply just have to
surrender their guns, as ordered.
PM: Is there any order you would not enforce to keep your retirement benefit? To protect your income?
RS: I do not want to continue this conversation. [Officer Smith then walked away.]
Almost a year after this exchange with Officer Smith, I am still disturbed. The implications of this exchange are alarming. I did not like how quickly Officer Smith was willing to reduce me, and people like me, to gun nut status. I do not like Officer Smith's mind set that his retirement benefits are more important than the rights and lives of gun nuts.
Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith exists. I did not make him up. It is a mere coincidence that his last name is Smith. I described him with
particularity on purpose. Good citizens need to know what Officer Robert Smith told me, and they need to know what he looks like so they will have a fighting chance to stay alive and remain free.
Peter J. Mancus
A Conversation With Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith © Peter J. Mancus 2000
© 2000 CCOPS webmaster@...
It should be noted that a police state is not possible without the condolences of the judiciary. Name a single instance where the police ever carried out continuing police state tactics in which the courts ruled against them. Only by a established corrupt judiciary can an established corrupt law enforcement exist. There is not other way. This is why J.A.I.L. is the answer to our country!J.A.I.L. is an acronym for (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
JAIL proposes a unique new addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL's is spreading across America like a fast moving wildfire!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
To send published judicial articles: USA-jail4judges@...
To contact the author of JAIL4Judges: jail4judges@...
All E-Groups are encouraged to sign on at firstname.lastname@example.org"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau <><