Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Category: Cops

  • Talk to the cops? Are you crazy? (part one of a multi-part series)

     
     

    I have the glory and honor of appearing on a few court-appointed lists in the area. This means I represent clients for misdemeanor, felony, and child protective/ delinquency cases. And I really don’t mind doing this kind of work. Strangely enough, going to law school really prepared me well for doing this kind of work. Go figure. Although it wasn’t taking the required criminal law classes that prepped me, it was the overall structure of the classes.

    One of the perks of my job is that I get to read a lot of police reports, and talk to police officers and detectives a lot. The reason why I say this is a “perk” is that it makes me look at the arguments law enforcement would use if the case goes to trial, and how police psychology works. It’s actually quite underhanded and manipulative once you break it down into its pieces.

    Sometimes, and it has happened more recently thanks to getting on those court-appointed lists, I have potential (retained!) clients call me with the following scenario: “I was at a party last weekend, with a lot of friends. My friends tell me that Tom says that I committed a crime against him, and that he called the cops. Should I talk to the cops?”

    My advice is always “No, you have no obligation to talk to the cops.” And then I tell the potential client, “if the cops call you, tell them you won’t be questioned without your lawyer present.”

    1. The format: Police reports are written in a good guy/ bad guy format. It’s like a play. Usually –and I can’t think of a time I have seen it any other way — the person who calls the cops is the “good” guy. Once the cops identify the rest of the players in the play, they will try to finger one person  (or possibly a group of people, who end up as co-defendants) as the “bad guy.”

    This is the beginning of how the mind set of law enforcement works. It’s easier to sell the story to a jury if the play is simple. Good guy / bad guy is a scenario we have all seen, and the jury will want vengeance, justice, or something, for the good guy. This is how a conviction is made.  Also, police and prosecutors know their audiences: it is the general public. What is the general public’s IQ? How does the general public feel about victims and justice?

    2. Corroboration: Talking to the victim, or alleged victim as I like to call him/her, gives the cops a list of other people to talk to, witnesses, before they talk to the person they’re trying to cast in the “bad guy” role.

    This is how under-handed the police mindset is, as talking to other witnesses first becomes a set-up for the defendant to put his own picture in the frame, or cast himself in the starring role. It also gives police an inside edge, as this leads to a cross-examining of the defendant from their first contact.

    This is part of the officer’s job. And it works in their favor — talking to other witnesses gives “corroboration” to the alleged victim’s story. If the witnesses back up the victim’s story, then the cops have some corroboration, and the victim’s story sounds more like it would stand up in court. Back to selling this story to a jury: if there’s a witness who says the same thing as the alleged victim, then the jury will have more sympathy toward the alleged victim, and it is easier to get a conviction.

    3. Contacting the defendant: The scene is now set, the cops have a victim, and some witnesses. Now all they need in the play is the bad guy.Once the cops call the potential defendant, they begin with what is called a “leading” question. Sometimes these are called open-ended questions. It’s the sort of question an interviewer uses on a job interview, such as, “where do you see yourself in five years?” it doesn’t lead to a “yes” or “no,” instead it leads to more of an explanatory answer.

    Or, in the potential scenario of being pulled over, it sounds more like this “How fast did you think you were going?” This leads to an answer that can be incriminating such as, “I’m not sure, but I think was going about 35.”

    Except in our “play,” as written by the police, it sounds a bit more like, “Hi, Jim. My name is officer Bishop with the County sheriff’s office. Tom talked to us, and said you committed a crime against him.”

    This open-ended statement might lead a person to possibly deny the assertion, or to try to correct the cops. The problem is that any other statement a potential defendant makes at this point can be used to cast him in the role of bad guy, no matter the answer.

    Usually by this time, again, cops have talked to other witnesses, and so once the defendant says something, an officer can counter with “Well, Mr. Johnson said you went after Tom with a carving knife.” Here’s the corroboration coming to assist the cops, and further explanations by defendants are only helping the police.

    Also, the next thing a defendant says – even if it is the truth — may lead to a credibility problem not too far down the road. The options are to either a) deny what has been said by Mr. Johnson, or possibly point the finger at someone else; or b) deny what was said totally. (Option (c) is also available, however).

    At the first contact by police, asserting an attorney’s assistance would be helpful. Instead, defendant should answer, “I’m sorry officer, but I can’t talk to you without my attorney present.” That’s option (c), which no one seems to take!

    Either way, the cops have an alleged victim, and a corroborating witness who already say nearly the same thing. But according to the defendant, those two are both liars now. That won’t seem likely to a potential jury, will it? This is just grist for the mill of the prosecution. Think again of the audience, which is the general public. Who should the jury believe: the defendant – or all of the possible ways to agree with the prosecution: instead the jury can believe the alleged victim, officer testimony, credible witness testimony . . .

    Police also know that facts are confusing – the victim and one or two witnesses usually get a few facts wrong, but this still can be OK to a jury. The victim is sympathetic; so it makes sense what with being attacked that the victim might get a few facts wrong.

    4. The defendant’s natural response works against him. This is where manipulation also comes into play, in case it wasn’t used already when contacting the defendant. Most people are raised to think that the cops are good people, and that working with the cops will help everyone (even when being questioned about something).

    A second natural response happens when police contact a suspect. The suspect wants to “set the record straight” about what really happened. This works against the suspect as well. The police aren’t interested in getting it straight, they are interested in the “good guy/bad guy” scenario.

    Back to my job: I can’t tell you how many times I have had clients tell me “I was respectful”– “I didn’t make a scene,”– or “I cooperated.” Even clients with fairly extensive criminal records tell me this, when their prior involvement with law enforcement should have them knowing better. Who cares whether you cooperate with the police? The police will do their job whether you cooperate or not. And that’s what they are paid to do, so why help them to do their job? I don’t see the cops coming along to help you do yours, now do I?

    5. The fact that cops wear uniforms works in their favor. It’s intimidating, for one. Second, it tends to lead to obedience on the part of defendants. Clients/defendants know that cops have uniforms, guns, and jails at their disposal. So it’s easier for cops to get compliance, and so defendants/clients to give in to authority: the alternative can be scary – even if you are innocent. People in that situation tend to want to get out the situation as quickly as possible, so it’s easier to tell the cops something. Third, the uniforms are de-humanizing. It’s not a guy who happens to be a cop, it’s a cop! People see the uniform, but not the individual in uniform.

    Well folks, that is all I have for now. Thanks for listening. Feel free to comment, leave suggestions, etc. My upcoming specials will be:

    Part two: The Big C: When do your Constitutional rights “attach” to the situation?

    Part three: Evidence problems. What the police report says, can it be “in” evidence?

     

    Lastly: this is totally worth the watch: a criminal law professor covers exactly the same topic I just did!

  • Hot Take: LA Judge Defies First Amendment

    In a major “oopsie,” a sealed plea agreement in a police corruption case was posted publicly. So judges being what judges are (convinced that they have royalty status and don’t really have to follow the constitution), the judge here defied the First Amendment and ordered that the LA Times remove all references to the secret plea agreement. The LA Times complied with the order but is appealing it. I’m somewhat surprised that they didn’t issue the equivalent of “Fuck off, slaver!” and challenge the judge to do something about it. But they caved for the moment.

    Of course, the judge either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the Internet is a forever thing. And we have no scruples about giving that slaver the finger. So here’s the story as it originally ran, complete with the several added details that the judge thinks are FYTW exceptions to the First Amendment.

     

  • The Scale of Peace

    “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

    May, 2018 went out with a bang for us. Our normally peaceful, quiet life was abruptly interrupted on the morning of May 29 by a knock at the door. A Deputy Sheriff had come to warn us that a gang of bandits had committed armed robbery and were now fleeing from the police on foot. They were hiding in the immediate area. We were to lock everything up and stay vigilant. We were a prime target for a desperate man looking to steal a getaway car.

    I made certain all of our doors and windows were locked. I made certain the vehicle we keep out of the garage was locked up. I hid all of the keys inside the house. Later that afternoon a Louisiana State Trooper came to the door to reiterate just how dangerous the situation was. They had caught three of the four but the fourth man was still in the area armed and dangerous. After that sunk in I decided that keeping two small pistols out, one for myself and one for my wife, was not adequate. I got one of my Winchester rifles out of the safe and carried it around with me everywhere in the house.

    We have dogs. They live inside the house with us and only venture out into a fenced in back yard. Dogs are the best burglar alarm one can have. No Frisbee time those two days but I still had to walk them out in the yard for bathroom breaks so I took them out one at a time several times over those two days so that I could keep one eye on the dog and one on the tree line. I carried my rifle with me.

    That night was one of little sleep. I guessed that the fugitive would wait until dark to make his move. With all of the outside lights on and all of the inside lights out I put my wife in the bedroom with one Catahoula Cur and the three small dogs so that she could sleep. I slept on the couch with the other Catahoula, a 115 pound Teddy bear named Jack, sitting up with the Winchester across my lap. Every time Jack would raise his head or a cricket would chirp I would wake with a start.

    On Thursday the 31st a hundred yards from our front door the last desperado gave himself up to the Sheriff. Two days of triple digit temperatures without food or water and near zero chance of escape convinced him to throw in the towel. It was a huge relief for the whole community. My rifle went back in the safe and everyone could mostly relax again. The experience reminded a lot of people that danger is real. The wolf can show up at the door anytime without warning. My pistols stay handy.

    Here is the story in the local press.

    Incidentally Rigolette is pronounced ‘RowGulley’, one word. Hey, it is Louisiana.

    I have to give credit to the Grant Parish Sheriff Steve McCain and a huge thank you to the other departments that aided us. Steve handled the crisis in a stellar manner. He got his man and no one was injured. He kept the suspect surrounded until he gave up. No doubt he could have gone charging into a couple hundred acres of thick woods after an armed and desperate man to put an end to the affair much sooner but he chose the safer tactic. It meant a sleepless night for a lot of people but if that is the price of no one getting injured I will pay it any day of the week.

    This situation could have ended very badly but it did not. When it comes to deterring crime the police are only half of the equation. Mr. Alexis never did try to invade any of the homes in this community, not for hostages, not for food or water, not for a getaway car. He was afraid to. You see, everyone in this community owns firearms. Not a day goes by that I don’t hear gunfire from somewhere in the community. People here practice with their guns. There is sport shooting, hunting and just plain practice. Most importantly those arms are used for self-defense. The families and homes here are guarded with them. It seems that Mr. Alexis took note of this. I’m sure that crazy guy that walks his dogs with a rifle slung over his shoulder was no small part of his decision.

  • I Fucking Hate New York

    So…

     

    I just took my five hour I Can Haz Sekund Amendment Nao? class, and my typical “go fuck yourself” tendencies have been whipped up to a jiggly wiggly timey wimey ball of hate.

    Now, any of the following things could be true:

    • The people teaching the class didn’t know wtf they were talking about
    • I might not have correctly understood what I was being taught, even though I got a perfect score on the test afterward
    • The people teaching the class could have been trolling everyone.  NY gun laws are completely beyond Poe, after all.

    But assuming the rage-hormones haven’t broken my brain, let me share my loathing of this state’s government with you.

    Stop!  Don’t Touch!

    If you don’t have a pistol license in NYS, you are not allowed to touch a pistol.  Not own, not carry, not buy or sell, touch.  Criminal offense if you do.

    Catch Twenty-one-and-three-quarters

    In order to get a license to touch a pistol, you must submit your paperwork for said license, including the receipt of the gun you have purchased.

    https://giphy.com/gifs/reactionseditor-l0Iy9D4PZKRZ6chcQ

    Yes.  You must first buy a gun without ever having touched it.  That’s the way things work here.  Now of course, just because you bought it doesn’t give you any of the normal benefits of what we would normally think “ownership” implies.  Like, YOU CAN’T FUCKING TOUCH IT.  Or, I dunno, take it home mebbe?  You give the gun store some money, they give you a receipt (only).  You submit the receipt with your license paperwork to the judge and maybe someday you might actually own something that is a little more solid than a slip of paper (which, much like the Constitution in NYS, can be used for wiping one’s ass).

    Here Comes The Judge

    Now the class-givers were very happy to be teaching my group of people, as we live in a county with a “good” judge, 2A-wise.  Because you see, each county in NYS has a judge who determines whether or not people have their pistol licenses granted, and which version is granted.

    Everything not permitted is forbidden

    For you see, you’re not getting a license to carry a pistol; no no, that would be silly.  You are getting a license to carry a pistol for a particular purpose only.  And guess what?  Self-defense is a separate listed category not granted by the other permitted reasons.  My judge will pretty much automatically grant pistol licenses for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.  This means I can carry a gun to a gun range, from a gun range to my house, to a hunting location and from a hunting location to my house.  That’s it.  I can also use it only for target shooting and hunting.  So, if I am carrying it to a lawful destination and I am attacked by a crazed hobo, I may not use the pistol for self defense if I do not have a self-defense license.  I can roundhouse kick his face off, I can crush his skull with a rock, I can blow his head off with a shotgun, but if I use my target and hunting license pistol to stop him then I am guilty of unlawful use of a firearm.  I may not (may not, see below) be prosecuted for the dead hobo, but I will be prosecuted for the gun felony.

    Ain’t nobody wants to see that *(euphemisms helpfully marked)

    Now, open carry ist verboten in NYS.  Which means, you may not expose your gun* in public.  This includes printing it through a shirt or jacket — that’s a crime.   Once you’re inside the (private) gun range, you can take it out* and begin using your gun.*  This also applies to hunting on a piece of private land.  But what about on public lands?   No, you may not expose your gun*, you must keep it concealed at all times.  Yes.  That’s right.  According to the law, you can use a properly licensed pistol for hunting as long as you don’t take it out of your range bag/holster/etc.  Now the NYS game wardens apparently did not want to be the victim of accidental discharges so they have magnanimously agreed to not charge people so long as the hunters are a) dressed like hunters, b) are able to explain what kind of game they are hunting c) it is the season for said game and d) the pistol is appropriate for the type of game being hunted.  Unless they just feel like charging you that day, of course.

    Post Code Lottery, NYS Style

    Now there is a pistol license that allows you to just (concealed) carry the damn thing, it’s called an “unrestricted” license.  One of the reason why my judge is considered one of the good ones is that after having has a specific-purpose license for a year, I can then apply for an unrestricted license.  There are more classes involved, and they’re not offered all that often, and there is a waiting list for them when they are offered, but if I get into one, my county’s judge has a habit of granting them.  Albany county’s judge apparently never approves unrestricted licenses.  Some of the counties where the Night’s Watch are located will grant the unrestricted license without having a year of the training wheel version.  Judges change.  There’s no guarantee that the next judge of Saratoga county will be any better than Albany.

    It’s getting all Sondheim up in here

    Remember way back when you “bought” a gun?  Well, if all goes well, in a few months you might be able to take it home, once you have all your paperwork in.  Well, “you” and “your” isn’t completely accurate.  When you go to Ye Olde Sheriff’s office with your petition, you include some envelopes addressed to four NYS residents of good character who have known you for at least year.  According to the trainers, this is not a rubber stamp thing.  There will be background checks run on them, and the judge will determine whether the relationship is adequate for them to provide “proper” character references.  The Westchester judge requires that one of these four must have known you for at least five years.  So if you’ve just moved here from out of state, I hope your pistol collection wasn’t too expensive.  Once the judge accepts your four, questionnaires are stuffed into the envelopes you provided (Huzzah for saving tax dollars!) and sent out.  Until those four people return those questionnaires, your application will not be processed any further.  If they are too late in returning them, the application is canceled.  If the judge doesn’t like what they read, the application is denied.  If the application is denied, you may not apply again until three years have passed since the denial.  You’ll need to go out of state for all your pistol-touching* needs.

    It gets better.  Better, not good.

    Once you do get a pistol license, you can now touch pistols.*  This will help make your second purchase a better one, since you’ll have some idea of ergonomics.  Once you purchase your next one, the gun store will give you another piece of paper.  “What?” you may be asking. “Don’t I have a license to carry a pistol home now?”  Hahahahahahano.  Well, technically yes.  You have a license to (concealed) carry A pistol.  A single very specific pistol.  Not “your” new one. This also works in reverse. Your pistol can only be carried by the licensee (i.e. you).  You can’t lend out a gun.  Another pistol-licensed individual can touch it* and they can use it for purposes for which their pistol license is valid, but they have to do so while under your direct supervision.  The good part is that you can amend your pistol license to also include “your” new pistol.  You won’t need any additional judge’s approvals or character references, just some signed and notarized forms.  It still will take a few weeks to process.

    You’ve fucking done it now (alternative title: Fuck Andrew Cuomo with red-hot pokers covered with syphilitic hornets1)

    This has all been about pistols.  Long guns are much less regulated…  unless you get a pistol license.  Because once you’ve deigned to ask to exercise your rights, the government now has carte blanche to fuck you over.  There are vast [dammit, why can’t I find that scene from David Lynch’s Dune where Duncan Idaho says “vast numbers.  VAST.”] numbers of ways that you can violate the terms of your pistol license.  I believe they’re all crimes. Most of them are misdemeanors with no/little chance of jail time, but they are still crimes.  Which means you immediately become a gun criminal.   And gun criminals aren’t allowed to own any guns, even guns not requiring any special permission (even in NYS) to own.  It’s kind of ingenious in a Kafka/Ayn Rand villain sort of way:  make it so those people that want to own guns are more likely to violate rules.  Make the rules carry little or no penalties to keep from generating sympathetic victims but then also use it to disarm them.  Ta da!  You’re disarming people who want guns without restricting the rights of those who don’t want to exercise those rights; as far as the gun-apathetic are concerned, no violation has taken place.  Brilliant!  Though not as brilliant as my idea of opening a hipster pop-up restaurant selling heated Red Baron frozen pizzas for $35.

    And one last “Fuck You”

    All his ranting has been concerning the laws of New York State.  But the title just said “New York.”  Why?  Well, one of the laws pertaining to gaining a New York State Pistol License is… It is not valid in the five boroughs of NYC.

    I wanted to find someone flipping off the NYC skyline, or the Empire State Building. This is the best I could do

     

    1 Hyperbolically speaking, of course.

  • Tactical Libertarianism

     

    The FBI agents arrived as expected, though they took up a few of the parking spaces for my own young troops that were working shift that day. When I looked out of my office window I sighed and thought to myself, “typical government agents.” I had deliberately marked those spaces off and told the agents they needed to park next door before their arrival. I strode outside and calmly but firmly asked the first agent I saw to get their guys’ gear packed up and moved over to the next parking area so my own people could use their own parking lot. I received a dark glare in response, but he grudgingly moved his two dozen or so agents, their heavy weapons, armored and unmarked SUVs, and the various listening and breeching devices they had to the next lot over.

    Christ, what an asshole.

    I’ll be damned if I let some dipshit civilian agents take up the parking spaces of my own troops. I’ve already got a chip on my shoulder from reading you lot’s opinions about law enforcement, and being a LEO myself, it’s hard not to get that nagging feeling that if I’m going to be principled about this then I’ll make sure every other prick I’ve got to work with is too.

    It isn’t long before the rest of the FBI equipment starts arriving. Blackhawks, armored carriers, and a few other odds and ends that would make the tinfoil hat wearers’ skins crawl. This, of course, is all happening within the United States. I voice my displeasure to my boss, who is well aware of my leanings, and he just shrugs and says that we aren’t involved, we’re just letting them use our parking lot.

    Most days, that’s the best answer I can get.

    I must preface the rest of this by saying that military law enforcement is not like civilian law enforcement. My jurisdiction ends at the gates except under extremely special circumstances where there is an immediate danger to life or national security. There are very, very few circumstances where that is the case and for the most part we are quite content to sit on our own little plot of land and protect our assets and the other military personnel, their families, and the support civilians who use them. There are a lot of other differences related to military law and the various responsibilities of commanders and such. That’s not really what this post is about though. It is kind of a two-for-one post about police reform and using tactical leadership to live out libertarian principles.

    As much as I hate to do so, I try to follow the police shootings that make the news. I am not a legal eagle. I can only make judgments based on what is shown to me by the extremely biased news and I can only look at so much news before I have to find something else to do that doesn’t make me want to gouge my eyes out with a wooden spoon. Every single shooting on the news in recent memory makes me cringe.

    You see, the thing I dislike most in life is a person who is unwilling to reflect on their own weaknesses or shortcomings. I don’t hate them, it’s more like pity, and nothing fills me with more pity than watching some untrained lackey in a uniform tap dance around the fact that they fucked up. They fucked up real bad and it cost someone their life when there are clear (at least to me) alternatives. Worse, I listen to the excuses of their defenders…their bosses, the public, the families. It is here that I need to remind the readers that there is a lot that goes on in the background that we may not hear about, but I can tell you from a law enforcement perspective that not enough occurs for it to make a meaningful difference. When I see the excuses being made to the public, what I see is what is happening behind the scenes. The chiefs are raging about image and the lawyers are making up public releases. The other cops are busting the balls of the shooter, maybe even shunning them. At the end of it all, “cooler heads prevail” and someone decides that we can’t let the public see us admitting a mistake because it emboldens our enemies and weakens trust.

    That’s all total horseshit. If it were up to me, Attorney General Mustang, I would put every cop on trial that fired their gun and they would be subject to the same rights, prosecution, and defense that every other civilian is entitled to. I want them to consider every round before it leaves the chamber and I want to eliminate, no, decimate every police union that has ever existed. Grind it up into dust and scattered to the winds with their union bosses (metaphorically) strung up for the world to see that if you become a law enforcement officer, you had better be the best, and you had better be prepared to defend every action you take ON YOUR OWN, just like every other human being you are supposed to be protecting. I would not oppose doubling the punishments against law enforcement officers for committing even the smallest offense.

    A secondary part that you are all familiar with is reducing the number of laws that officers must enforce. This is a huge deal. There is no possible way to effectively police every law on the books and it doesn’t matter how much money is in the budget. The task that goes hand-in-hand with this item is the elimination of funding from tickets. A military law enforcement officer may write tickets on base, but not one cent goes towards the unit’s budget. That this isn’t the case for civilian law enforcement is so perverse that it needs to be at the top of the list for criminal justice reform. Furthermore, not everything even needs a damn law. This is pretty well covered on a daily basis around here, but it is sufficient to say that the state of law in this country is an abhorrent mess…is it any wonder that a cop can’t make an effective judgment call if they can’t even understand the law they’re supposed to be enforcing?

    A third item worth addressing is the standards for recruitment. They’re abysmal. Special forces applicants undergo extensive psychological testing to determine their ability to make decisions under pressure and accomplish the mission. It would be perfectly acceptable to subject law enforcement applicants to a standard that is at least as rigorous without the emphasis on destruction. In fact, I propose the opposite of destruction. Whereas special operators are expected to mete out absolute death in the circumstances they are ordered into, we should establish a system for law enforcement applicants where they are expected to mete out absolute life so that the citizens they are protecting can be assured that when an officer responds they are going to do everything within their power to keep people alive. Here’s the real catch that will send current officers into a frothing mess: law enforcement officers must do this for people who are actively breaking the law. If a perpetrator dies, officers should be subjected to a trial wherein it is determined whether or not the officer did everything in their power to keep the perpetrator alive. An officer who has passed a mental exam reserved for special operators but who would die to protect a victim and a perpetrator would be an impressive officer indeed.

    Officers must remember that they are a part of the community, even if they are coming from far away. This is something I have to remind my own troops of on a regular basis. It never fails that there is always at least one “supercop” who feels it is their absolute duty to ticket any and every offense to the maximum extent. At my last assignment, I had an individual who would line the cars up on the streets as they passed by and go down the line writing tickets. I quickly put a stop to this. It is complete and utter nonsense and hurts the community far more than it helps protect them. At every assignment I’ve been to I’ve had to rein in “supercop.” I’ve often heard the rebuttal “the law is the law” and to some extent that is true, however, I often find myself applying the NAP to decide on the application of the law. Often, this results in me simply turning someone around who may be bringing an illegal substance into my jurisdiction.

    I’ve also been hit square in the face with the realization that it’s not just the “supercops” who fall victim to the idea that cops are the only thing standing between civilization and anarchy. On at least one occasion, an individual I was well acquainted with and who was a director for another unit came up to me one day and asked if it was normal for my officers to place their hands on their weapons when approached. I was a bit taken aback. This has never been standard practice since I’ve been in. In fact, we are specifically taught to keep our hands in front so as not to escalate a situation. The director informed me that during his usual early morning walk through his supply yard, coffee cup in hand, he was approached by one of my officers who had his hand on his weapon and was demanding ID. While I don’t expect the officer to recognize everyone on base, I do expect them to compose themselves in a professional manner when they are out in the community. Upon calling up my training section and initiating more focused efforts on community relations (and basic fucking police tactics, like don’t hold your gun like a scared little twerp), I quickly found out that all the “war on cops” rhetoric in recent years was weighing on my very young group of officers. I created a brief presentation on the actual statistics on violent crime and police deaths, one which was well received and proved to be a relief for my officers.

    Here is where I can tie in the use of body cameras. I believe they are a wonderful tool because in my limited experience, the officer will never tell the whole truth. I do not necessarily believe that they intentionally lie at all times, however, an uneducated individual that was hired using poor standards might be inclined to forget incriminating circumstances or less likely to take in the entire set of circumstances they find themselves in. The public should demand body cameras for all their officers and not only that, there must be a punishment associated with not using them. We use fail safes in many other professions to learn what went wrong and apply those lessons in the future. If these officers have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear. Standard libertarian disclaimer: I don’t believe this saying applies to private citizens. It absolutely applies to government employees.

    I wish I could say that it’s just bad apples, but that would be a lie. As a young officer, this became apparent to me very quickly following a meeting I had with local police chiefs. I was asked to provide my antiterrorism expertise for an event and, having never done something like this before, I was eager to talk about the subject. It wasn’t long into the meeting that I found out they weren’t really interested in terrorism. There was only a passing interest in looking for backpack bombs or something else of that nature. No, the real threat was that a group of gun rights advocates were preparing to attend the event as well with their firearms in full view. The discussion quickly turned away from spotting the real threats to this “extremist militia.” I attempted to bring the discussion back around by pointing out that anyone who is open carrying and minding their own business is going to be the least of your concerns when looking for terror threats, but to no avail. I left the discussion at the first break, disgusted by what I had learned.

    It is with this little bit of background that I came up with a subject called “tactical libertarianism.” I know some of you will cringe at the concept of applying military terms to this philosophy, but it’s how I think and it’s what works for me. The idea stems from my training as a Special Reaction Team leader (a kind of SWAT) and from some experience overseas. The basic premise to me is that each individual that makes up a team must be responsible for themselves, first and foremost, so that the team is not carrying them in life threatening situations. How does this apply to libertarianism?

    Every person, whether we like it or not, is a part of a team. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, most of us can look around and see the team framework all around us. It could be a family unit, a group of friends, coworkers, etc. As libertarians, we often joke about being antisocial, the tiniest of political minorities, insignificant on any stage worth noting. I believe, however, that that is not the case. To me, there is nothing mightier than an individual who recognizes their own self-worth and can apply that to a team construct.

    A fire team encourages each other. They bust each other’s balls. They push each other in the gym and help each other through tough times, but ultimately, they all know that the individual must make the conscious effort to be the best they can be for the team. An individual who doesn’t measure up, who drags the team down, is dropped.

    In normal society, however, we can’t just drop someone because they drag us down. We have obligations to each other for various reasons (no, this isn’t some social contract fuckery, I’m just talking about the ties we have with the individuals around us that we voluntarily create). As libertarians, we tend to be stronger mentally because of our unceasing desire to better ourselves as individuals. We constantly look inward, challenge ourselves to find cracks in our armor, seek out knowledge and arguments, and look around us to better understand the world we live in.

    Tactical libertarianism is the idea that when we, as libertarians, recognize our being part of a team, we can push the entire team forward to become stronger than it was before. You push yourself to be healthier, stronger, more financially stable, more educated, and more individualistic because of your unwavering support for the libertarian philosophy. If you model libertarianism and stand on principle within the framework of the teams you are a part of, you might find yourself able to lead the team forward because of what you have pushed yourself to do. In fact, I actively encourage that leadership. The joke is often said here that anyone who seeks a position of power is exactly the type of person who shouldn’t have it. I agree. The difference here is that by consciously acknowledging the corrupting effect of power in a position, and then making the decision to give up that power upon the expiration of your time in that position, you have already proven that you are in some way qualified to hold those positions. George Washington did not seek to be President, but he did not hide from that duty either.

    An example of tactical libertarianism I will use has to do with active shooter scenarios. As the person who is considered the authority for all things violent crime-related on base, I am tasked with teaching the local populace the best way to handle a situation where someone has opened fire around you. Beyond the usual “run, hide, fight” stuff you may be familiar with, I have taken the liberty of adding violent crime statistics from the FBI into my training to show the real trend of shootings (it’s going down, regardless of how they screw up the definition). I pushed to have “run, hide, fight” clarified by my chain of command so that people understand that it doesn’t have to be in this order. You must decide what is most advantageous to your survival and follow through.

    I emphasize in my training that the individual must decide how they will behave before being confronted with these dangerous situations. I’ve been given feedback that this has helped people in other situations, not just dangerous ones, where they prepare themselves ahead of time to act and it is easier to follow through later. While this may seem obvious, it is often taken for granted. This is something of a new concept in the world of stopping violent crime (especially the fight part).

    As part of my training, I also began advocating that people carry a firearm whenever possible. In the context of an active shooter scenario, it is very easy to show how modern firearms are a great benefit to the individual. I have gone so far as to push for concealed carry on base (for some reason this is controversial…). A briefing that I gave made its way up and convinced some important people to allow concealed carry in certain circumstances on the installation. It’s a small step in the right direction. This is how I’ve chosen to lead my little corner of the tactical environment based on the libertarian principles of individual responsibility (deciding beforehand) and self-defense.

    You may find that as you place yourself into positions to assist the team at a tactical level, leadership roles will be placed on you because of your ability to stand up and look around to see what needs to be fixed. Someday, that tactical libertarianism may expand to an operational level, or even a strategic level, but it starts right back with the fire team…the small group of individuals we each helped to move forward.

    The point isn’t to propel libertarianism into some political wave to sweep the nation. It isn’t to turn it into some militaristic shadow of its former self. The point is to help your family. It’s to help your community. In doing so, you take part in and enjoy explaining the principles behind what makes it all work, the team building and organization that stems from individuals working together, without government assistance, to prove what they can do. No politician can withstand a principled individual and no government could ever hope to withstand a principled team that is the foundation of a principled community.