Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Category: Crime

  • 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!

  • Wednesday Afternoon Links

    Before Rufus gets a chance to ask the question: yes, some of us DO work. One of those people is apparently Brett. I guess getting loaded on cocaine and blowing strangers is just for fun. In his absence, I’ll be providing links. If someone posted something earlier, I apologize. I haven’t been paying attention.

    • Cody Wilson’s no good, very bad day. I want to believe this guy has been caught up in a plot to “neutralize” him, but he seems to have set served himself up on a silver platter by signing up for a site called SugarDaddyMeet, exchanging nudes with a minor (article says the girl was *under* 17 the age of consent in Texas [you’re welcome for keeping you off a list by looking it up for you]), and then hiring her for sex. The bragging about being “a big deal” may not have been helpful either.
    • I’m sure all of you nerds have already seen that Linus Torvalds–father of Linux–is taking a breather so that he can think about not being a dick to a group of people volunteering their time. In the wake of this there’s now a code of conduct, which has of course been immediately decried as the SJWification of the Linux kernel. I’m currently fantasizing about Buddhist monastic life.
    • Normally, this story would have me glancing at the headline and moving on, but how can I resist linking to a story with the phrase “rape by use of drugs, oral copulation by anesthesia or controlled substance”. The surgeon in question is relatively pretty, and I can guarantee his near future will include rigorous training on the value of consent.
    • I assume this is just fake news meant to fluff The Meg, but it’s still neat. “the males would each travel in a V-shape pattern as many as 140 times a day. It’s unclear if the behavior is related to mating or if they are hunting for different species of fish.”
    • Speaking of unfortunate interactions between adults and minors, Mr. Michael Aliperti threatened to shoot an 11 year old who beat him at Fortnight and got arrested for it. Mr. Aliperti should fix a cup of chamomile and take a long hard look at where life has taken him.

    Our user engagement analytics department indicates that we need more Minnesota content, so…here

  • 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.

  • Tricks of the Trade: The Horoscope for the Week of April 29th

    So you want to be a fortuneteller.  Congratulations!  You’re a moron!

    There are a very few limited instances when putting up a crystal ball shingle is a good less than catastrophically bad idea:

    1.  It’s a front for your illegal business
    2.  It’s a money-laundering operation
    3. You are otherwise unemployed, and/or bored AND you have no expenses involved with obtaining your venue.

    In the same vein as giving a junkie some chlorox with which to sterilize their shared needles, here’s a little advice about succeeding in the X-mancy business.

    "Cleo" was already taken, obviously
    This is the look you’re going for

    First off, be a woman.  You might get away with being an astrologer with a Y chromosome, but for palmisty, cartomancy, scrying or psychic reading ain’t nobody gonna pay you for your opinion.  Once you are a woman, invest in chunky jewelry and scarves.  Consider dying your hair, but for the love of Gaia, do not have it professionally done.  You need to do it yourself.  The look you are cultivating is “sketchy.”  Respectable people make crappy fortunetellers.  There needs to be something… off about your appearance — the difference between “underbridge dweller” and “reclusive gypsy” is in the attitude and how you set up your surroundings.

    Good luck with that
    Nice try

    Do you think you’re psychic?  Great!  This is going to help lot.  It’s like they say, “sincerity is important, once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”  The most successful psychic I know acts exactly as if they believe their own bullshit completely.  She has never dropped the facade in front of me.  Remember, you’re mostly a salesperson at this point, so have confidence in your product!  What if you can’t actually believe that you have the power to foretell the future?  Well, there is a solution to that.

    Drugs.

    Remember the oracle at Delphi?  Paint huffer.  Not from a spray can, but all natural organic hydrocarbons straight from Mother Earth’s crack.   If you want to go with the classics, you can choose ether, but what with the usual accouterments of candles and incense, I wouldn’t recommend it if you don’t want to go all Richard Prior.  But be careful that you don’t overdo it.  “Not entirely safe, not entirely sane” will draw the attention of the mark; “Crackhead” will have them scurrying for the door without paying.  The point of the drugs is to take the edge off your internal censor and *ahem* “open your mind to” the possible connections between the real world and your divinatory tools.  The only difference between “psychic” and “psychotic” is “cot,” which is what you’re probably going to be sleeping on if you choose to ply this trade.

    There is one skill that is pretty much mandatory if you’re going to make this business a sole/unaugmented source of income:  cold reading. This is a skill that can be learned, so do it.  Prestidigitation is also extremely useful, both for forcing cards and well… we’ll get to that

    Ideally, they should be less physically imposing, as well
    Notice that the mark must ALWAYS be wealthier than you

    Last thing:  if you want to make real money, you’re going to need a permanent premises so that you can build a clientele of suckers.  And if you want to really take them for what you can get, you’re going to need to commit some felony-level fraud.  This is going to end badly, if for no other reason that former marks, even ones that you that you didn’t even rip off will eventually be upset with your advice and having a fixed place of business means they know where to find you to make their displeasure known, or to send the local constabulary.  If you are satisfied by the rewards of one-off clients and the occasional petty larceny (this is where prestidigitation comes in:  if you keep your workspace cluttered, claustophobic, and filled with garish colors and patterns, this can make the mark more distracted and less likely to remember that he set down something small and salable, particularly if he didn’t notice you palming it.) then it’s safer to adopt the M.O. of grifters everywhere and keep mobile.  Carney life here we come!  Actually, renaissance fairs are a pretty good deal for an aspiring fortuneteller: the one-person tent is the cheapest premises you can have and is perfect for the kind of work you need to do, you have a constant flow of new clients pushed right in front of your flap, and those clients are in a pretty good mood and won’t actually take your advice too seriously.  Plus lots of them are drunk.  Blessings to Eris and Dionysus for drunken marks!

    I should probably also mention that dial-a-psychic is a thing that exists and my closest fortuneteller friend makes her living doing this, but I’ve never seen it in operation first-hand.  so not only do I not know anything about it, I don’t even know enough to be entertainingly ignorant about it.

    Also the marijuana is usually ass.
    Renfair. Pros: lots of one-off clients, steady income. Cons: herpes.

     

    Now, on to this week’s chart!

    This week has a couple of strong markers, and an oddly large number of tension/uncertainty indicators.  The more definite signs are for good fishing, and an extraordinary alignment (Sol-Mercury-Venus-Saturn retrograde) for relationships.  This is an excellent week to meet new partners, but a terrible week for breakups.  If the squeeze hasn’t gotten his crap out of the house KK, maybe it would be better to put it off until next week.  On the tension front, we have TWO different cross-alignments of opposition influencts;  we have change and stability signs on top of each other (Mercury in Capricorn) as well as balance/flux juxtaposition (Luna in Libra). If you are having difficulty figuring out WTF is going on in your life, this probably is why.*  The positioning last week that encourages sports betting  (Mars-Saturn retrograde in Capricorn) and masturbation  (Jupiter retrograde in Scorpio) remain this week, so have fun with that .

    *no, this is not why at all.

  • On Laws

     

    In general, as a libertarian, I’m skeptical of any new laws that people want to propose. Controlling people just goes against my grain. But I’ve noticed lately that people of differing policies seem to be talking past one another. So, I’d like to propose a universal framework for considering laws.

    In general, I think any law should be decided upon as a balance sheet–with benefits weighed against costs. The important thing is to recognize fully all the costs and benefits and reject the things that shouldn’t be included.

    I’ll start with my libertarian observation that any law, of necessity, entails a curtailment of individual freedom. That’s (for me) a big run up in the costs category. But different people are going to assign different weightings to different rights and freedoms. The important thing to recognize here is that people will assign different weightings to the loss of freedom and to understand that a different weighting isn’t the hallmark of stupidity or evil. The one time I think it’s genuinely fair to discount the cost of freedom is when you have a situation where a law is banning an actual violation of individual rights. I think it’s fair to say we shouldn’t mourn the loss of people’s freedom to rape, rob, or kill other people.

    The second consideration is whether the law is going to work. Too often people demand laws because they don’t like something or consider something awful, and assume the legislative process is a magic wand to make the world be the way they want. But it isn’t. And that kind of magical thinking is how we wound up with the wonders of organized crime during Prohibition and the glories of our modern War on Drugs. Generally, trying to ban something that’s wildly popular is a pretty sure recipe for massive flouting of the law. It’s not a perfect guideline, but, if you already have a bunch of laws on the books about something, one more probably isn’t going to do the trick. The benefit you see of a law should be weighted by the probability of the law actually working.

    On a related note, ask yourself what the secondary and tertiary effects of your law will be. Sometimes these can be positive, but, much more often, they fall on the cost side of the ledger. In fact, quite a few of the problems people have that they want to pass new laws for are the result of previous laws that people thought would magically change human nature. Consider whether the law you’re seeking to implement is going have some relatively easy workaround. If it is, ask yourself what will be the consequences of huge numbers of people availing themselves of that workaround. Make an entry in cost or benefit accordingly.

    Now, ask yourself about enforcement. How heavily are you going to have to enforce the law, and, perhaps more importantly, how heavily are you willing to go to enforce the law. Some laws can be implemented with little attention to enforcement. A lot can’t. If the law would be easy to enforce, that probably counts as a benefit. On the other hand, if you’re not willing to go to the extent you’d need to to enforce the law, you should probably count that as a cost. As a libertarian, I tend to implement this standard through what I’ll call the silver-haired, kindly old grandmother rule – if I’m not willing to shoot someone’s silver-haired, kindly old grandmother in the face over it, it probably shouldn’t be a law.

    Finally, we get to motivation and morality. Ask yourself, are you advocating this law as a rational means to achieve a specific policy goal, or are you looking to feel good about yourself without much personal effort or sacrifice? If it’s the latter, you should probably discount your expected benefits of the law accordingly or even throw out the proposal in its entirety. Passing laws doesn’t make you a good person. You don’t get moral credit for what you demand someone else do. If you want to be a good person, just go about doing that in your own life without placing demands on everyone else. The rest of us will respect you a lot more.

    So, there you have it. This is a framework that, I think, will allow conservatives, libertarians, progressives and liberals all to discuss proposed laws and much of the rest of politics, in a common framework. As a libertarian, my calibration of the framework obviously tilts against any proposed law. But, it can be calibrated lots of different ways. And at least acknowledging the calibration might lead to more meaningful engagement between people with different politics.

  • Borders and immigration: a view from Romania

    To start, I do not write from the perspective of an American. My country has more of a problem with emigration than immigration, and it is not out of the question that I might want to leave myself. So I can see myself on the other side of the border to many from the States. I live under a sort of double jurisdiction, Romania and the European Union, and of a nationality that has been often the object of attack and mockery as immigrants in Western Europe. We are all lazy thieves, beggars, gypsies, wanting to take both the good jobs and welfare of the British chav. I have been bullied on this very website by, to my greate shame, Canadians of all people.  I am aware of the collectivist generalization most Western Europeans are prone to – despite the fact that without Eastern European doctors and nurses, their fabulous state medicine would have collapsed a while ago. And if you want trained doctors and engineers, some riff raff will inevitably come along. Although, after influxes of immigrants of late, Romanians no longer seem so bad.

    Damn Picts taking all the good gladiator jobs
    The Picts payed for this

    I am a reasonably moderate libertarian, in that I am a bit of minarchist plus. So I do not write or think from an an-cap perspective. I am also the kind of libertarian who believes you have to advocate for both ethical, principled libertarian positions – regardless of their chance of being implemented – and policies that are fit for purpose, good enough, and move things to the right direction while being more palatable to others. I see little point to the “Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus” of libertarians, purity to the exclusion of everything else, who only recite philosophy and ignore the real world. And I am well aware of the danger of compromise but find it acceptable when the alternative is nothing. To complete, I am not a nationalist, I am not a patriot and dislike patriotism in most cases, and I do not feel any particular affinity for certain people over others just because there is a border between us. I can see I have more in common with the fine people on this fair website than with the vast majority of Romanians.

    So I am starting with what I consider to be some basic facts: states and governments exist. Debating whether they should is meaningless at this certain point in time, for the purpose of this discussion. These governments have jurisdiction over state borders and have citizens and residents and temporary visitors, with the former having additional prerogative and responsibilities, especially in politics. Governments more or less (usually less) are – should be, to be more accurate – accountable to the citizens. Governments, having jurisdiction inside certain borders, have powers over and responsibilities towards people inside those borders. The US government should uphold the rights of people – including temporary visitors – in areas it has jurisdiction over – by libertarian standards this is its only job – and not the people of, say, Romania. The exceptions to this are American citizen abroad, towards which the government has certain responsibilities.

    So a government treats insiders differently than outsiders. The question at hand is in what way the latter should become the former. Has government the right to control who crosses the border? My view is yes, up to a point.

    The most often libertarian view for open borders is, paraphrased, the state has no right to impede peaceful people from traveling where ever they wish on public property, and to where ever they are invited on private property. The state has no right to stop people from freely associating.  It is the right of humans to travel where they choose. Or to go bleeding heart about it (which I do not recommend), we should care more about humans than borders.

    This is all very feel-good, but has some issues, in my view. I would in first instance. replace people with people under the jurisdiction of said state. In my view when talking about rights – freedom of speech, assembly, religion in the context of government – we are talking first and foremost people who happen to be within those border.  In a better, non-interventionist world, government should not be able to influence non-residents, outside letting them in or not.

    From a pure libertarian an-cap / minarchist point of view, many immigration issues would not be issues at all. With most property private and fully protected, the issues of public lands / areas would be minimal. With no government support at all for immigrants and refugees and with the perspective of being shot if you aggress the locals, a good number of problems would not appear. But that is not the world we live in.

    There are several utilitarian reasons for some immigration restrictions. There is a risk posed by a large number of people with radically different values moving into an area, if these values can lead to breaking the Law. Any area has limited capacity to absorb newcomers and exceeding this will cause conflict. Police doing their job plus an armed citizenry could be a reason this problem would not appear in certain societies, but overall it can be unpleasant to have constant conflict in a community that needs to be addresses with violence.  How about deontological ones?

    Sadly the keep moving
    Lines are important

    Libertarians who do not want to become caricatures understand liberty is not defined as do whatever you want, but within limits. First and foremost, your fist my nose, as the saying goes, but even beyond, there are certain elements of living in a society that will curtail liberty – just the difficulty of defining boundaries between my liberty and yours, and compromises necessary to live in a community.

    The libertarian argument is this should be as little as possible and for very good reason. It is, of course, a vulnerable argument, like all arguments in politics – where to draw the line. (Bugs step over this line.) This always applies to human dealings and there should be a constant attempt to swing things in libertarian direction, err on the side of freedom and all that. Even anarchic communities have rules about behaviour, written or not, and probably debate them. But in the end, the community needs a very good reason for any intervention. That is the basic argument.

    I usually ignore the every square inch of land privately owned school of libertarianism. This is not the case. Not how humans function. Commons always exist, the village green was rarely privately owned, many roads and lanes likewise.

    While no libertarian would deny the right to associate on your property – as long as you are not doing something to affect others’ property – you will not have an immigrant solely on your property (except that 15 year old Russian girl you buy on the dark web and keep in your basement, but this is an exception). The community will have a role in deciding what happens in the commons. So unless you can teleport people onto your private property and then teleport them away, immigration will not be a solely private property issue.

    Similarly there is not always an absolute right of free association. I cannot associate with convicted murderers whenever I choose. So here I go back to an earlier paragraph “the state has no right to impede peaceful people from traveling where ever they wish”. So I would say a state can at the very least restrict access to non-peaceful people.

    Let the right one in

    I talked above about Romanians in Europe. To be completely fair, plenty of Romanians went West with mischief on their minds and some locals were rightfully annoyed. Especially in small towns and villages in which people were not used to rude, loud foreigners making a mess and stealing whatever they can. Romanians eating sunflower seeds and drinking beer on the street while spiting the seed husks is not something a Swiss mountain town wants to see – although these can be mere tourists, not immigrants. So the problem here can be simply of generalizing immigrants, not all immigrants. Some Romanians are, I assume, good people.

    So I can say that a government may restrict access of people with high probability to engage in violent or illegal acts, or deport those who do engage.  Another class of people with restricted access beyond the violent may be the very diseased. A government may refuse access to people with dangerous, contagious diseases.

    I find it difficult to make the freedom of association argument for completely open borders, let any and all in just in case I might want to associate with one of them. One solution to the freedom of association standard might be a resident should vouch for immigrants he want to associate with, a member of community with skin in the game and possibility of redress of wrongdoing.

    In a world of government welfare – which I am not happy about the locals getting but there at least is some limit to them – and in which government does not properly protect the locals from immigrants, open immigration will not work.  A main argument against this along the lines of two wrongs do not make a make right argument, or just because we have welfare does not mean we should restrict immigration. I do not agree with this argument. If a needs b to work, then you can’t have a before b, is my view.  So yes, in libertopia immigration self regulates. To a point. Rapist and thieves may want to come anyway, but they would be dealt with without all the politics involved in current governments. We do not live in libertopia.

    To be clear, I am not saying build a wall or kick all immigrants out. I am for as much immigration as possible within limits of safety, with some clear rules. No criminals would be a basic one.  You cannot really bring the thieves of the world to your country. It is not in order to protect jobs, not racial or cultural purity. Just keeping a certain control of dangerous criminal elements is not too much to ask. You can still get all the good people you need while restricting the very violent. And I would also add no government aid to new immigrants for at least a couple of years in which they earn income and pay taxes. Giving no aid at all is not an option.

    Ok, thoughts? Let me have it in the comments. (I did write this post because my last few were kind of light on the comments, and it is sort of an experiment to see if I can get an good old fashioned argument going like on you know which site.)

  • 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.